Pages

Friday, 10 June 2011

Note: This post was taken down by Blogger after they received a 'DCMA Takedown Notification' on the grounds that the post infringed copyright. According to the notification I received I should have been able to find out the details of the complaint in order to rectify the mistake by searching the site ChillingEffects.Org. In fact I could not find any reference there to the complaint, so I am reposting this, adding a credit to the photograph of Tony Wakeford on Brick Lane, as this could conceivably be the subject of copyright claim. Another image has been removed as I am not sure of its legal provenance. The authors of the complaint did not seek to contact me directly before registering their complaint. Therefore I currently have no way of knowing what the precise nature of their complaint was, and no way of addressing any concerns they might have had regarding copyright or anything else.

A recent article on this blog - Weather Warning: Shower of Shit Expected Over Islington, by James Cavanagh - briefly described the backgrounds of some of those playing at the Slimelight gig by Sol Invictus, 6 Comm and others, scheduled for Sat 25th June, arguing that "anti-fascists everywhere should be making their objections loudly", and (implicitly) calling for the gig to be called off. That post has received more comments than any other since the blog was launched, reflecting the anger and confusion on both sides about this issue.

Some time later the (newly formed) anarchist group Islington Alarm posted an article, Stop the Fascists in Islington, which also called for people to contact the venue to demand that the gig be cancelled - as did, for example, the journal Principia Dialectica. Then, Love Music Hate Racism (LMHR - probably the biggest UK group campaigning against fascism and racism in music, and associated with Unite Against Fascism, who have been heavily involved in campaigning against the BNP, EDL, etc.) called for the management at Slimelight to cancel the gig because of the racist & fascist connections and connotations of some of those involved. As the management have declined to do this, LMHR have called a protest at Slimelight on the evening of the gig. The intention of the protest, as far as I understand it, is to take the argument about far-right infiltration of their 'scene' to those attending the gig as well as those who use Slimelight generally (the venue has separate dance floors and gig areas, so the majority of those turning up on the night will not be going to the gig itself). I guess the idea is that they want to talk individuals into boycotting the gig, and probably also the club generally, on the grounds that this will put community pressure on Slimelight not to host such events in future. I am told that the LMHR campaign has the support of various local trade unions, anti-racist and anti-fascist campaigners, possibly the Trades Council, local political campaigners, etc. In other words, I believe that it has real roots in the local community.

At the same time, the Slimelight management have created a page on Facebook, None So Deaf as Those Who Will Not Hear, stating their case and encouraging fans of the club to air their views. Most of the comments there are solidly in favour of the gig going ahead. However, at least one supporter of Slimelight - 'Lilith Mort' - also voiced opposition to the gig (indeed, she called for people to contact the police with their concerns, leading a commentator on this blog to accuse us of doing the same. We didn't. Lilith has no connection with this blog, and has never posted or commented here, as far as I can see) on the grounds that it will give the club a bad reputation. She subsequently received a series of responses - primarily, but not exclusively, from Patrick Leagas - which she perceived to be threatening enough for her to say that she was taking legal action in response. Whether she will actually do so is anybody's guess, but she claims to be a barrister, so you never know. Leagas is also threatening people with legal action, though he doesn't specify precisely who. He says that "We as a group are going to seek legal advise (sic) and will go to the highest places in law if we have to", adding that they will also be approaching "the authorities and the police". Lilith Mort's comments seem now to have disappeared from the site. The administrators say that they have not deleted them. Possibly Lilith deleted them herself after the way she was abused and intimidated.

Yesterday Islington Alarm posted a follow-up article, Love Slimelight, Hate Racism, affirming their opposition to the gig, but drawing back from any mass protest, arguing that "We do not seek to create a mass public campaign that is why we stated that individuals should voice their concerns... No anti-fascist lightly takes the decision to propose cancellation of a gig, or prevent artistic expression. However we feel that unfortunately seeing as the far-right has used art, in particular music over the past few years to engage younger audiences, it is necessary to oppose fascism in music, the best means being cancellation. We are not fascists or totalitarian, however we feel a need to oppose fascism wherever it may be and in whatever context... If Slimelight were to cancel the gig it should be and would be entirely their decision."

Islington Alarm wish to distance themselves from the LMHR campaign, but their arguments seem wrong-headed to me. Most anarchists I know would laugh at the idea that a mass campaign constitutes some sort of 'totalitarianism', and they would find it even stranger than an anarchist site should argue that, in dealing with these matters, the final decision should be entirely that of management (in this case, the management of Slimelight). I actually find it quite bizarre.

As is inevitable, different groups and individuals have different arguments about why the gig should not be held. Just as predictably, those defending the bands simply lump all of their opponents together into an amorphous mass despite the considerable disagreements that exist between the various groups and individuals who are concerned about the concert. Not only that, but the arguments in favour of stopping the concert are misrepresented entirely. And since, in the online commentary and in the press, this blog, LMHR, Islington Alarm, Lilith Mort and various other individuals and organisations are considered somehow to be working in concert, when in reality they all have their own beliefs and agendas and are largely working entirely separately, I thought it would be useful, as the administrator of this site, to lay out my own take on some of the issues.

It's Not Simply About Fascist Iconography

First, I'd like to address the argument that comes up most often from those who oppose any action at all; the idea that the entire campaign is inspired by the belief that anyone who wears or uses fascist - or even just militaristic - clothing and iconography, must be a fascist. This, the argument runs, would mean banning the Sex Pistols, the Banshees, the Skids (remember them? Probably not) and - perhaps more pertinently - Throbbing Gristle, and many other similar 'transgressive' bands who have used such imagery.

Now, the use of such imagery is fraught with dangers, and most people who use it do not deal with or take into account these problems, and probably shouldn't be using the imagery the way they do. But I also think it is trivially obvious that many of them are neither racist or fascist. This means that, contrary to what you will read elsewhere, the blog does not believe that anyone using such imagery must a fascist. Maybe they should be argued with on other grounds, but the goths, neo-folk fans and fetishists, etc., who use such imagery are not usually fascists. Indeed, many (most?) of them would consider themselves anti-fascist.

But the arguments about Sol Invictus and similar groups is much more sophisticated than that, and they hinge around the claim that certain strains of fascism (and revolutionary traditionalism, 'national anarchism', etc.) have adopted a strategy by which they deny being fascists and concentrate instead, not on promoting fascism but on promoting cultural concepts, etc., that will help normalise and make acceptable key elements of fascist belief. The intention is not to recruit directly to fascist organisations but to create communities, sub-cultures, currents of opinion, etc., that are more conducive to fascism, thus preparing the ground for future fascist growth. I don't want to talk about this - admittedly, key - idea at length here, but will just refer to Anton Shekhovtsov's excellent essay on the issue, Neo-Folk, Martial Industrial and ‘Metapolitical Fascism’.

Now, you may reject these arguments entirely but, even if you do, the fact remains that, at least as far as this blog is concerned, the case against the Slimelight gig does not hinge on the bare fact that some of the musicians make heavy use of fascist iconography. Therefore it makes no sense at all to say - as one commentator on the Slimelight event page did - that stopping this gig will lead to actors being prevented from wearing Nazi uniforms in films. Such gross misrepresentations of the argument do nobody any favours; nobody apart from fascists, that is.

Note too, that apart from all that, the arguments against Sol, etc., also address matters that go beyond the use of imagery - discussing, for example, lyrics, essays, statements made by the musicians concerned, and so on. In some cases we are also talking about membership of, or support for, fascist organisations. In any case it is disingenuous to argue that this blog wants to stop the gig simply because the musicians use unpleasant imagery. I'd very much defend their right to do so, if that is all that was involved.

But Aesthetics are Important

On the other hand, I don't accept the defence which says that the use of fascist imagery is acceptable because it is simply a matter of aesthetics, and that aesthetics has nothing to do with politics. One of the defining ideas of this blog - which may well not be shared by many of its readers - is that fascist aesthetics are just as much a part of fascism as fascist ideas. The aesthetics express and articulate a fascistic, authoritarian sense of one's place in the world - as discussed, eg., in this article by Susan Sontag. As above, this doesn't mean that the use of such imagery should always be opposed on principle, nor does it mean that the people who use it are necessarily fascist, but it does mean that the aesthetics of these groups are part of a wider picture, and are not wholly neutral and unremarkable.

One thing the defenders of Slimelight have to get to understand that, while it is true that there are many people who use fascist imagery without being either racist or fascist, there is another group of people who may also be keen on this music and also keen on fascist imagery; namely... fascists. Does anyone seriously believe that, while there may be fascists in your workplace or your housing estate, and while fascists can get elected to local councils and even to parliament, it is inconceivable that they might also go to concerts or play in bands?

Fascists Not Necessarily Socially Conservative

And then there are those who imagine that being a fascist means being socially conservative, and therefore that fascists could not, by definition, be involved in anything even vaguely 'counter-cultural', and would not be seen within a mile of a place like Slimelight. Such a position is only possible if you ignore the history of fascist modernism - for example, the fact that some of the Italian futurists were enthusiastic fascists. It also ignores more recent developments in which fascists have tried to move precisely into 'counter-cultural' movements. For instance, Troy Southgate, of the martial industrial band H.E.R.R, happily manages to combine denying that he's a fascist with hosting meetings of the New Right which feature notorious fascists and antisemites - see this article from Searchlight on The Men Who Are Creating a New BNP Ideology, and this article by Graham Macklin, Co-opting the Counter Culture: Troy Southgate and the National Revolutionary Faction, printed originally in the academic journal Patterns of Prejudice.

Beyond that there is the fact that fascists elsewhere have been able to build the beginnings of large-scale movements that have something of the tone and flavour of counter-cultural movements - see, for example, this article by Moyote Project on Casa Pound and the New Right in Italy. It is true that the fascists in this country have not been particularly successful in this regard - but that is only because they faced serious organised opposition from the likes of the Anti-Nazi League and Anti-Fascist Action. With regard specifically to fascist influence in culture, Rock Against Racism was crucial to helping defeat fascist influence in music when it was on the rise in the late 70s and early 80s. In calling for the Slimelight gig to be cancelled, this blog stands in the same traditions which have proved successful in the past in countering the growth and influence of fascism and racism.

Neo-Folk Itself is Not Fascist or Racist

I have no doubt that the vast majority of neo-folk fans are not fascists, and neither are they deliberately covering for fascists. Some people consider the genre itself as problematic, but I don't. As is made clear in the 'About' pages for the blog: "It is not a matter of condemning these subcultures [Neo-Folk, Industrial, Martial - AS], which in fact contain many non-fascist, liberal, socialist, anti-fascist, etc., supporters, but rather of drawing a clear line between the fascists and non-fascists within them by showing the latter the nature and extent of the problem, in the hope that they will themselves marginalise and ultimately reject fascist participation in their 'scene'."

Therefore it is my belief that we should be arguing with fans of the genre (and of related genres such as martial industrial) about the problem they have of neo-fascist, 'revolutionary traditionalist', 'national anarchist', etc., influence and infiltration. The fascists and racists believe that a culture with such an enthusiasm for transgression, and in which 'art' is seen as an end in itself, is a perfect place to spread their ideas and build alliances and contacts, and the best response to that is for the people within the culture to spew them out and refuse to have any truck with their ideas, refuse to play on the same bill, and to boycott their records.

However, that doesn't mean that other anti-racists and anti-fascists should simply sit back and wait for the fans to get their act together. It is the job of anti-racists, etc., to take the argument above to the fans - which is what LMHR will be doing at their demo.

The problem with this question is that it is hard to work out what it really means, or rather that it means different things to different people. I personally doubt that any of the musicians playing the disputed gig are still card-carrying members of fascist organisations - although one at least has been, and, more than that, is documented as having been an activist rather than just a passive supporter (the image here shows Tony Wakeford of Sol Invictus - on the far left of the picture - on a National Front stall in Brick Lane in the 80s - close to the Slimelight venue. You can read more about the significance of the NF presence at Brick Lane in the article Tony Wakeford on Manouevres). However, this blog has not argued that the gig should be stopped simply because of, eg., Wakeford's past membership of the National Front, but rather because our main contributors believe there is a significant continuity between his beliefs then and his beliefs now.

It's well known that Wakeford - after coming under a lot of pressure - issued a statement in which he says: "Many years ago I was a (sic) once a member of the National Front. It was probably the worse decision of my life and one I very much regret. However, I have no connection with, sympathy for, or interest in those ideas nor have I had for around 20 years." Some people take this at face value to mean that he has had no connection with fascism in the last twenty years. But that is not true - he has collaborated with racists, fascists and anti-Semites in various ways, and he continued to sell the openly fascist 'Above the Ruins' recordings long after that. He says that he has had no connection with the ideas of the National Front - but, then, he wouldn't, since he adopted the position of the ITP / political soldier faction before leaving the NF - and their ideas were completely at odds with the NF drive to make themselves respectable and electable, much as the BNP has tried to do more recently. The political soldier faction - led by people such as Nick Griffin, current leader of the BNP - believed that the NF was merely a radical version of the Tory Party, and argued for a revolutionary fascist strategy that embraced violence and illegality. This faction was very much influenced by a group of Italian fascists, led by Roberto Fiore, who had fled to Britain to escape the Italian police. According to Wikipedia: "In England Fiore became a close friend of Nick Griffin and following Griffin's departure from the National Front he helped to organise the International Third Position, becoming a founding member. Fiore had connections with the traditionalist philosopher and has written about topics such as traditionalism and the third position.Julius Evola"

I do not have the time to go into the details of this argument now, but this review of an academic treatment of neo-folk takes up the argument as to why Wakeford's claims are dubious, and tries to show how ideas drawn from revolutionary traditionalism (an offshoot of fascism that, via the work of Evola, for example, was influential on the fascist milieu Wakeford was a part of) continue to influence the lyrics and themes he and some of his friends deal with. Incidentally, his group, 'Above the Ruins', was named as a tribute to Evola's work 'Men Among the Ruins'.

Comments on the LMHR Petition and Campaign

LMHR have issued a petition as follows, asking people to sign and support it:

No to Slimelight’s Nazi-fest in Islington

Love Music Hate Racism has discovered that the Slimelight club in Islington has booked bands with deep links to fascist and neo-Nazi groups. They will play on Saturday 25 June. All of the acts on the night use racist lyrics and decorate their set with swastika symbols and Nazi images. The Nazi organisation Stormfront is promoting the event and have declared that its supporters will descend on Islington for the night. The event is organised by Tony Wakeford, who is founding member of Nazi band 'Sol Invictus' and an ex-member of the Nazi National Front (NF). He continues to move in fascist circles. Wakeford is the founding member of known fascist bands such as 'Death in June' and 'Above the Ruins' both of which have donated to the NF and are promoted in fascist magazines. We believe that these Nazi bands represent a threat to community cohesion in Islington are an insult to those that have suffered at the hands of fascists. We call on the organisers cancel this Nazi-fest. It is in all our interests to keep Islington free from racism, violence and fear.

Several people have contacted me to say that, while they support the campaign for the gig to be cancelled, they cannot sign the petition because it contains a number of errors. For instance, Tony Wakeford is not the organiser of the gig (that's Gaya Donadio, aka Hagshadow) and neither is it true that "All of the acts on the night use racist lyrics and decorate their set with swastika symbols and Nazi images". The fear is that such errors exaggerate the charges against the performers in a way that will make it harder to win the support of some of the fans because they will see that some of these charges can't be sustained.

Now, I think that the reason they have taken this approach is because, with groups such as the NF, BNP and EDL it has been important to establish that, despite their denials, they are essentially fascist organisations (and 'Nazi' is here used as a synonym of 'fascist'). I think they were right about that. However, in this situation the problem is that many of the fans of these bands (and most of the fans of Slimelight) are neither racist nor fascist, but they believe that people should be allowed to say and do whatever they like without being opposed, even if what they are saying promotes racism and fascism.

Therefore this blog has always argued that the key to the situation is to win the argument with the fans that clubs, etc., should not be providing a platform for artists who promote racist and fascist ideas. The problem is that the really dubious performers already understand perfectly well that most fans will not accept racism and fascism, and so they deny that they are either fascist or racist. In that situation the job is to 'patiently explain' to the fans what the issues are. If they are approached with the claim that they are willingly attending a 'Nazi-fest', as if it were the BNP summer camp, they won't find it credible and will therefore be more inclined to support the gig.

Despite all this I would encourage people to support the call to stop the gig, not because I agree with the text of the petition but - given that Islington ALARM have decided against any sort of mass action (see above) - it is now the only game in town in terms of an active campaign. People should either compose their own statement as to why the gig should not go ahead and send that to LMHR (which you can do here), or, if you don't want to go through LMHR, make a comment below or contact me directly with a statement and I'll collect them and send them to the press, the venue, etc. But if you don't want to do either of those things I hope you sign the LMHR petition itself despite its exaggeration.

The danger is that people take a purist, abstract position on all this. We have to realise that it is a step forward for activist campaigners such as LMHR to take the issue seriously. At the same time, they are new to this territory and are bound to get the details and emphasis wrong to start with, and it seems to me abstentionist to refuse to support their effort until they get it right. Hic Rhodes! Hic Salta!

The job of the LMHR picket/demo is to argue with the punters about why Slimelight should not provide a platform for such gigs, hoping that enough pressure can be put on the venue management to make them back down. This simply isn't going to work if they assume that the people attending the gig (and, even more so, those attending the venue generally) are willingly participating in a 'Nazi-fest' - the vast majority of the attendees are not the enemy, but are potential friends and allies, and if the campaign isn't aimed at convincing these people then it will be counter-productive.

A Question for Slimelight Supporters

I may add to this post later, as more thoughts occur to me concerning the campaign against the Slimelight gig, and in response to later developments. In the meantime I would like to ask supporters of the Slimelight management: if you really want to have nothing to do with racism and fascism, and if the artists playing on the 25th have nothing to do with racism and fascism, can you explain why Gaya Donadio (in her guise as 'Hagshadow') - who is, I believe Patrick Leagas's partner, and who is promoting the Sol Invictus / 6 Comm gig - has managed to book a gig at Slimelight for later this year featuring Sutcliffe Jugend and Peter Sotos?

"Kiddie Torture" speaks of "the sublime pleasure" of child abuse and the "added pleasure" in witnessing the pain of the parents whose children are murdered. It focuses specifically on Ian Brady, whose domination of Myra Hindley is glorified as is their murder of Lesley Downey (age 10) and Marie Payne (age 4).

The twelve pages headed "Nazi Triumphs" are mostly photographs of emaciated dead people and victims of medical experiments, with one page of commentary by the editor and scattered quotes from concentration camp commandants and Hitler.

Sotos describes women as dogs, garbage, dirt, shit... yet must somehow delight in Myra Hindley's role in the Moors murders. He accomplishes this by ignoring the fact that she is a woman. Women to Sotos are victims or they do not exist.

The arguments around Sotos are different to those about Sol Invictus - while the content of his work is much more extreme, the political context is more complex. I mention him not because I think it is problematic in the same way, but because it too raises complex issues about what is and isn't acceptable. My point is that I find it completely irresponsible to take the position that any and all art should be welcomed just because it's called 'art'.

On a similar note I should mention that the headliners, Sutcliffe Jugend, contributed a track to this release, 'White Power', from 1983. Perhaps they have repudiated this, but if so I haven't heard about it. But in any case, even if the group are not fascists (I don't see any reason to think they are, as it happens), don't you think this might possibly count as promoting, encouraging or affirming fascist ideas?

184 comments:

seems pretty straightforward to me:1. If you are a real Nazi then you’ll get your head kicked in.2. If you enjoy the ‘transgression’ of Nazi imagery, you’ll still get your head kicked in. After all we’re just validating your transgressive fetishism; you can’t have it both ways i.e. be safe and be ‘shocking’

anti-fascist are the fascist. you guys give the symbols the strength we just use them in artistic expression. tasteful or not. it's not your business. if the swastika offends you then you can choose not to buy or attend but don't try to oppress other people

why is it that the anti-fascist and straight edge kids are always the most violent, aggressive and self righteous. you push your agenda through intimidation, like the nazis.

The supposed "anarchists" here seem strangely into appealing to the law/people in control positions, into coercion by thread of physical force and into considering people as part of stereotyped abstracted groups rather than individual humans with their own reasons for doing things. Pretty weird really.

I have to say tho, the whole "anti-fascists are the REAL fascists" sounds as dumb as any other common "MAYBE LIBRULS ARE THE REAL RACISTS LOL" internet-style of discourse.

”... there was no right-wing viewpoint to any of the stuff -- we made an error in judgment in testing out the bounds of offensiveness. There was certainly no "movement" of any kind. Since those days, we have made sure that we do not fall into that trap again and go out of our way to avoid being promoted by magazines and record labels as any kind of political band -- we never were, and never would be. It is interesting to point out that the kind of organizations we were accused of supporting would certainly never tolerate the kind of people we really are”/Gary Mundy. (from: http://segerhuva.phpbb2.se/den-mest-politiskt-inkorrekta-kassetten-t203.html )

From what I've read from other bands, none of them knew what the aesthetics would be. It was done 28 years ago, by a teenage guy who went too far and learned from it. Some of the bands gave him shit for it allegedly but I have no links to support this. Yes, that would have rewarded a sharp slap on the fingers back then and all criticism it aroused towards them I would certainly agree with. As stupid as russian roulette. But you - are still - today - holding this – a contribution to a compilation – in 1983 - against, not only SJ but all those who book them because THAT would give them TIES TO RACISM AND FASCISM??? It's not like you are attacking the subculture itself here, right? But still you want to drag one of the last independant regular venues in London, in the dirt with … THIS??? I deeply fear your 'sharp line' between fascists and non fascists because you do not have a clue about where that line goes. ARE YOU SERIOUS??? And Sotos?

”raises complex issues about what is and isn't acceptable. My point is that I find it completely irresponsible to take the position that any and all art should be welcomed just because it's called 'art'. ”

First of all I want to hug all irresponsible people out there. Love 'em. Without you, life would become so tediously boring that I would probably start a global terrorist network just for fun. In what form other than art would you like to perceive the evil side of humanity then? Ok, you've convinced me. I'll join you in your crusade to make the whole world look like the pictures on Jehovas Witnesses magazines. Isn't THAT going to be exciting? Lions playing with children on summery fields. Tulips. Ahhh.

/ENTartETE is absolutely correct. We shouldn't be looking back to 1983, when the likes of Australian PE act 'Streicher' (AKA 'Thule Society' AKA 'Fascist Imperium') have brought things bang up to date by releasing the 'Der Stürmer/Hammerskins' compilation of past transgressive glories including 'Aryan Shocktroops', 'For Race And Nation' and 'Order Of The Boot' – in 2010.

Anyone caring to order this delight may do so by visiting www.hagshadow.net – who, coincidentally, are promoting a certain Slimelight event in the near future.....

It's precisely because the 'line' is not sharp that blogs such as this are timely and necessary.

@ENTartETE: I find it difficult to follow your argument. You seem to agree that Sutcliffe Jugend shouldn't have used, or allowed themselves to be associated with such imagery. That's a good starting point.

But in the next breath you seem astonished that anyone would raise the matter, ask for an explanation, or take any exception to it. People who come across this imagery are going to be offended and the group will have to explain themselves. Get used to it.

By the way, in calling yourself 'entARTete' I hope you are not trying to make some kind of connection between the dismal teenage posturing of power electronics and the modern art vilified by the Nazis as 'Entartete Kunst'. But I suspect that you are, as this idea is one that is raised over and again on this blog and elsewhere.

The notion seems to be that, since people object to the fascist, miscogynist, racist, paedophile, etc., content of what is produced by these artists, therefore their situation must be analogous to that of modernist artists censored and attacked by the Nazis.

But there's a big difference. What the 'transgressive' crowd seem to conclude from this is that ART IS ABOVE CRITICISM. But this position is a quaint aestheticist pose from the Victorian era. The Dadaist and Surrealists attacked by the Nazis would have laughed at the idea that the content of art is inviolate, or that artists were above social struggles.

But what passes here for an argument about the sanctimony of art is maybe really not much more than a posh-sounding defence of the sanctity of free trade: ie., no one should interfere with the right of Slimelight management, the record labels and artists, etc., to make money by servicing people who want to celebrate aspects of fascism, racism and misogyny.

As for your silly ending about how you don't want to live in a peaceful world because it would be boring to you - how about those who already suffer today at the hands of racism and fascism? Presumably it doesn't matter to you if the irresponsible use of symbols and toying with fascism, etc., exacerbates their problem and makes their lives worse - because that would be 'more interesting' for you.

The Greeks had a word for such extreme self-absorption. The root is in 'idios', and gives us the English words for both 'idiosyncracy' and, obviously, 'idiot'.

You are all irrelevant and boring. The best possible outcome here is that people who are interested go to the gig and have fun, those who aren't mind their own business and go somewhere else and have fun and nobody hurts or gets hurt by another person over their respective dull, limited, irrational ideas about how the world should be, and that as individual human beings we all learn whatever precious little there is to be learned from this dumb and futile 'debate'.

I got through most of you essay before I began to get irritated. At no point to you define what is "Fascist" except to make clear that it is "bad" and an illicit thing to be. You already live in a "fascist" culture, here in America too.

I would define "fascist" as a culture/government that seeks to subvert individual liberties and rights of self expression, requires conformity, requires not mere personal acquiescense to the state's/culture's demands but an active role in rooting out "subversives" to prove loyalty to the state/culture. A "fascist" culture lays it's own groundplan for who is "us" and who constitutes "them", whether the division be by gender, nationality, skin color, religion, creed, height, weight whatvever. Spain and Italy were fascist for longer than any other society without succumbing to race baiting.Until you define what constitutes British "fascism" your arguments and subjective findings are going to be found lacking any honest level of integrity. You are clearly far to concerned with labels and epithets than actions. I get the impression that a young caucasion male referring to himself as a "fascist" could serve as a foot masseuse at an multi-racial nursing home and you would take issue with him. This culture of "I'm this, you're that - we must be at odds" is ridiculous without basing such opposition on the actions taken by such people.

"The fascists and racists believe that a culture with such an enthusiasm for transgression, and in which 'art' is seen as an end in itself, is a perfect place to spread their ideas and build alliances and contacts..."

Finally, I don't think you appreciate how obscure and ineffectual this music "scene" truly is, who it appeals to and why. Your conjecture that political racists are forming bands to recruit black clad militant goths to vote Tory or Republican is simply ridiculous, and your allowance of the initial post threatening violence against those dressing (!!) the part of "neo-folk" reveals your own agenda - which is merely hooliganism.

I got through most of you essay before I began to get irritated. At no point to you define what is "Fascist" except to make clear that it is "bad" and an illicit thing to be. You already live in a "fascist" culture, here in America too.

I would define "fascist" as a culture/government that seeks to subvert individual liberties and rights of self expression, requires conformity, requires not mere personal acquiescense to the state's/culture's demands but an active role in rooting out "subversives" to prove loyalty to the state/culture. A "fascist" culture lays it's own groundplan for who is "us" and who constitutes "them", whether the division be by gender, nationality, skin color, religion, creed, height, weight whatvever. Spain and Italy were fascist for longer than any other society without succumbing to race baiting.Until you define what constitutes British "fascism" your arguments and subjective findings are going to be found lacking any honest level of integrity. You are clearly far to concerned with labels and epithets than actions. I get the impression that a young caucasion male referring to himself as a "fascist" could serve as a foot masseuse at an multi-racial nursing home and you would take issue with him. This culture of "I'm this, you're that - we must be at odds" is ridiculous without basing such opposition on the actions taken by such people.

"The fascists and racists believe that a culture with such an enthusiasm for transgression, and in which 'art' is seen as an end in itself, is a perfect place to spread their ideas and build alliances and contacts..."

Finally, I don't think you appreciate how obscure and ineffectual this music "scene" truly is, who it appeals to and why. Your conjecture that political racists are forming bands to recruit black clad militant goths to vote Tory or Republican is simply ridiculous, and your allowance of the initial response by crab threatening violence against those dressing (!!) the part of "neo-folk" reveals your own agenda - which is merely hooliganism.

”But in the next breath you seem astonished that anyone would raise the matter, ask for an explanation, or take any exception to it. People who come across this imagery are going to be offended and the group will have to explain themselves. Get used to it. ”

@Stelnikov – Read again. It should be clear that I also support if you” raise the matter, ask for an explanation, or take any exception to it”, but that does not mean that I agree with who you find to be guilty of an explaination, or the context in which it happens. I gave you GM's explaination because he was actually involved in it whereas Slimelight feels pretty much very far removed from it in all ways. Yes, the groups should have to explain themselves. To be honest, they're probably quite bored with doing so by now, but it was a stupid as hell thing to do, so ask them to explain it again if you like. I'm not opposing that

”By the way, in calling yourself 'entARTete' I hope you are not trying to make some kind of connection between the dismal teenage posturing of power electronics and the modern art vilified by the Nazis as 'Entartete Kunst'. But I suspect that you are, as this idea is one that is raised over and again on this blog and elsewhere. ”

First of all, you got it all wrong, it's ENTartETE, not entARTete. Art in small letters as it should be. Secondly – well, my art and I would both be considered degenerate by the Nazis yes. Certainly. You condemn it too indirectly, but that does not necessarily make you a Nazi as there can of course be many reasons for criticism, and I wouldn't suggest that you support the methods they used without being very very certain of it. Good that you asked.

”...since people object to the fascist, miscogynist, racist, paedophile, etc., content of what is produced by these artists, therefore their situation must be analogous to that of modernist artists censored and attacked by the Nazis ”

Again: I do not oppose that you 'object' to whatever you feel like or inform yourself about it. You are suggesting that I'm putting you in the position of the Nazi while defending holy art somehow? That would be just another ridiculous exaggeration and I think we've had enough of those already. Fascists or similar are normally my opponents when I discuss things, so the name stuck.

”What the 'transgressive' crowd seem to conclude from this is that ART IS ABOVE CRITICISM ”

Well I can only speak for myself, but I think art and criticism are in some way or another in constant battle as well as in constant cooperation. And that is how it should be maybe, but in no way does it entail that criticism should be able to stop art from happening without having good grounds for it, and it is those grounds I criticize here, not your right to be offended or act upon that in a decent way.

”The Dadaist and Surrealists attacked by the Nazis would have laughed at the idea that the content of art is inviolate, or that artists were above social struggles. ”

See above comment. Plus, I agree, art is not harmless, and it does and should, raise difficult questions. Social struggle , yes – art and criticism are both players. So what is good for that social struggle then? That artists and activists who largely both oppose the same enemies of that struggle (nazis, fascists, right-wing nutters, nationalists, separatists …) starts throwing shit at each other over different approaches towards totalitarian iconography? In that case I think we're doing very well. All is not black or white. If Streicher, H.E.R.R. or Barzel played at Slimelight, that would be an entirely different thing, to me at least. And related to that;

@anonymous 16.13, if Gaya are selling those, that's too bad. It is good that people are informed about them and what they stand for, and I do not suggest that anybody supports them.

Stelnikov : ”to make money by servicing people who want to celebrate aspects of fascism, racism and misogyny”

Dodgy. To deal with, be interested in, or even be obsessed by something is not necessarily to 'celebrate' it, and even less does it entail morally defending all 'aspects' of it. Ever heard Dali's comment on how beautiful he thought atom bomb explosions were? What was that about? Finding some beauty in the most vile thing possible, right? Is that what you hate and want to get rid of?Regarding transgression versus, well, rejection: I admit that transgression can involve some real problems, can you see any danger with the rejectionist approach? That all things that the fascists/nazis ever touched, stole, perverted and used for their own means, should be buried with them? Is 'looks like a nazi is a nazi' really that much less dangerous than the admittedly insufficient 'it's all about aesthetics'? Really? Is there no danger in this projecting nazism and fascism upon symbols, regalia, clothes, aesthetics etc? The fascists in our parliament claim not to be fascists of course and too many believe them. Very respectable looking people. Their dodgy evil symbol? The national flag of course.

”how about those who already suffer today at the hands of racism and fascism? Presumably it doesn't matter to you if the irresponsible use of symbols and toying with fascism, etc., exacerbates their problem and makes their lives worse ”

First of all, I would not dream of speaking for all those people above their heads in any matter. That is arrogant beyond belief and I truly emphasize with them and I do my best to help people suffering from such sick regimes. I also work to campaign against the right wing populist party who are sickly enough in our parliament but that doesn't matter because sometimes I listen to Sutcliffe Jugend so it's all comes to nothing, right?

So yes, it matters. Bring me the substantial evidence that what I do ”exacerbates their problem and makes their lives worse”? Does that not depend on who I am, what I actually do, what I actually defend and oppose? Am I lumped together with 'that lot' and responsible for everything anybody you feel like including in 'us' do now? Guilt by association? I recognize that strategy from somewhere.

What I AM saying is, that by conducting things the way you are, accusing people you don't know of partaking in war-crimes and so forth, you are shooting at everything you see and doing more damage than good, creating enemies among anti-fascists etc etc, and if this is how you are going to 'argue with the fans' then I don't think it will come to anything good at all unfortunately. Which is a shame.

One thing to bear in mind with the neo-folk music scene is that, as many of the people involved are active occultists, a relationship with reality isn't exactly their strong suit. The idea that there's a cause-and-effect relationship between their displaying sickeningly offensive imagery, and people being offended by their... sickeningly offensive imagery, is a bit over their heads, because many occultists have a hard time understanding logical thought processes and causal relationships in the first place.

As for whether Nazis in this scene have the moral or physical courage to face up to the consequences of their own actions, many of these people flatter themselves with pompous shows of sub-Nietzschean pseudo-philosophy, but any suggestion they might engage with existential thought on a more than stylistic and superficial level - by, for instance, actually taking responsibility for their own actions - is also over their heads, as what Nazi image fetishism and occultism both give them is a fantasy-world in which realities they can't cope with can be avoided. In some cases the desire to avoid reality is an act of misplaced rebellion, and those cases often overlap with the cases where people choose to avoid realities they can't cope with because they're genuinely just fucking thick.

There's a photo on the website of the Kill Your Pet Puppy fanzine showing the sublimely pretentious Jhon Balance (real name Jeff Rushton) from Coil and Death In June, wearing the Totenkopf insignia of Hitler's SS. This moronic stunt probably had more to do with dumb fantasies about "Black Sun" occultism than actual politicised Nazism, but either way it was really stupid (and to those who will wish to reply claiming "I knew Jeff and he wasn't a Nazi" - I'm not accusing him of being a Nazi, I'm accusing him of being a twat).

Death In June played The Garage in Islington (with fellow Nazis Non and Der Blutharsch) on 6 May 1999, a few days after David Copeland (a former BNP member and sometime bodyguard to BNP founder John Tyndall) nail-bombed Brixton and Brick Lane markets and a gay pub in Soho. Copeland killed 3 people, including an expectant (white) mother, and injured 129. In full knowledge of this, DIJ's (gay) front-man Douglas Pierce dedicated a song from the stage of The Garage to honour "the White Wolves" - a one-man-and-his-dog Nazi organisation who, at that time, were trying to claim responsibility for Copeland's bombs. That's when it finally dawned on Jeff Rushton that, as a gay man, his being involved with Death In June wasn't such a great idea, and that's when The Garage refused to host any more Death In June gigs.

That's not to say Jeff Rushton wasn't fully aware of his friend's Nazism well before Douglas Pierce publicly praised Nazi nail-bombs. What happened at The Garage was that Jeff Rushton finally realised that both Douglas Pierce's Nazism and his own involvement in DIJ could have consequences in external realities outside the soft-as-shite occultist fantasy-world in which he'd previously placed them. The moral conflict caused by this was a major factor in the alcoholism and drug addiction that ultimately led to Jeff Rushton's death.

@ENTartETE: thanks for your excellent answer. Really I was replying to all the people I've talked about Entartete Kunst before on this blog and elsewhere, using what you said as an excuse. I changed ENTartETE to entARTete precisely to make the point about how the argument usually embodies a defence of the sanctity of art. I accept, though, that that isn't your position. Actually, you might be surprised to hear that I agree with a good deal of what you say.

I disagree with your argument that there is no problem beyond the core of open fascists. I think there's a genuinely 'meta-political fascist' thing at work too *which is why I so often refer to Shekhovtsov's essay). Of course, that bit is extremely difficult to make decisions about and deal with. But that is no excuse not to try.

And I certainly disagree with the argument that all music should be made available when such the resulting sales, eg., are used to fund fascist activity or feed into the wider process of helping create a culture in which fascism can grow.

Greetings!I come with general words of praise for you and your efforts in exposing these individuals.

I am yet another long time industrial/noise/whatever fan who is glad to see that someone is finally examining these characters in a consistent, focused, and ongoing manner. I've always been troubled by the imagery of NON and DIJ, and it is long past time that this stuff be brought to light for a real discussion. (NON and DIJ are the worst offenders I know of. Wakeford is arguably worse, but until reading this blog I was much less familiar with him. I think I had only ever heard two Sol Invictus songs.)

What irks me quite a bit is all the defenders of these groups who seem to think that even having a DISCUSSION on this is somehow unacceptable. Some of the hysterics from the apologists who post here are so identical that I really do wonder if they are just two or three people spamming these comments sections with the same foolishness.

That you believe various protestors and organisations have "real roots in the local community" is irrelevant — none of them know anything about this "scene", and few of them will have the slightest idea of what they are talking about. All they have to go on is the trash that LMHR and the rest have peddled. I've not the slightest interest in the "opinions" of local trade unions of Death In June's back catalogue.

Many people in violent Nazi groups like Combat 18 (and more recent C18 spin-offs like the Aryan Strike Force and Racial Volunteer Force) don't really believe a word of Nazi ideology, and "only" promote this image to shock and because they enjoy violence and sadism, so the excuse that some musicians "only" promote Nazism to shock is no defence. In fact, one of the reasons C18 co-founder Will Browning gave for his disillusionment with C18 is quoted (the source being a C18 magazine quoted in Nick Lowles' anti-fascist book White Riot) as being his disgust at the all occultists and pedos C18 attracts (mind you, Browning's still a Nazi, and web chatter says he's still selling CDs and T-shirts at Blood & Honour gigs).

Having said that, musicians Gary Mundy (of the group Ramleh and of Broken Flag records) and Maurizio Bianchi publicly repudiated their Nazi image/s, and, while they're still disgusting people, they're probably telling the truth. As for the White Power compilation itself, Gary Mundy might have got cold feet, but the compilation was put together by Philip Best from the band Whitehouse, who said his motive was to start a "new era of white power". This is the same Whitehouse whose member Peter Sotos was a/ jailed for child porn and b/ described the death camps as "Nazi Triumphs". The same Whitehouse whose leader William Bennett wrote a manifesto called "The Most Violent Music of the New Right" for issue 1 of Force Mental magazine - praising Italy and Spain for their history of Fascism, condemning Amnesty International and CND, and saying Whitehouse are "concerned with the struggle against the unhealthy Negroid influence in all popular music" (also quoted in Flowmotion magazine, issue 6). The same Whitehouse whose member Kevin Tomkins publicly stated his admiration for Heinrich Himmler, and used the name Sutcliffe Jugend to publish tracks with titles like "New Camps", "SS 1982" and "Legalise Child Abuse". Kevin Tomkins makes no secret of the fact he wasn't being ironic and that he wanted to emulate his heroes by actually killing women, and, in case it's not obvious, the name Sutcliffe Jugend is taken from the names Hitler Jugend (Hitler Youth) and (the misogynist serial killer) Peter Sutcliffe. Little surprise then to see the Slimelight promoting another gig featuring both Peter Sotos and Sutcliffe Jugend.

The people to contact about getting the Slimelight's license pulled are Islington Council Licensing Team, 3rd Floor Zone C, 222 Upper Street, London N1 1XR, 020 7527 3031, licensing@islington.gov.uk; and the person to contact about getting the Nazi / pedo Peter Sotos banned from entering the UK is the Home Secretary Teresa May, 020 7219 5206, mayt@parliament.uk. I'd also have a word with some Feminist groups about these runts.

For those who don't realise the links between the right-wing NeoFolk scene and Blood & Honour bands (more skinhead oriented Nazi music), read this - http://www.bloodandhonourworldwide.co.uk/magazine/issue38/issue38p27.html

You guys need to catch up, William Bennett is the most middle class guardian reading liberal bore imaginable, just read his blog. Furthermore he's spent the last few years making overtly 'African' music.

Though "not being a Nazi", on the other hand, wouldn't prove that you weren't nevertheless still promoting fascism, racism, etc. That would still make you a legitimate target of criticism as far as most readers of this blog are concerned. Obviously. *eyeroll*

Just mocking the somewhat goalpost-moving arguments of both 'sides' of this nonsense. It did start of as NO TO NAZI BANDS after all! Now it's more along the lines of 'This guy i personally fell out with 20 years ago said something stupid 30 years ago and his subsequent apology may or may not be 100% sincere so SHUT DOWN SLIMELIGHT NOW >_<#"

You can't shut down slimelight!!: where would all the goths go to spend the whole night scene-drama-gossiping in the smoking area while like 5 lonely cyberdog rejects dance to bad EBM, and the DJ in the empty trad goth room plays records to himself :(

"William Bennett is the most middle class guardian reading liberal bore imaginable, just read his blog. Furthermore he's spent the last few years making overtly African music"?

William Bennett is indeed middle-class, did go to public school, and does claim that his interest in Nazi war crimes, and the years he spent celebrating rapists, torturers and child-sex killers are expressions of an extreme libertarian and "Sadeian" (rather than National Socialist) philosophy. All that is probably true. I don't recall "I only murdered Jews because I enjoy hurting people" being a defence that cut much ice after WW2. As for Bennett's fake "African" music, indeed Bennett spent much of his recent life trying to cover-up for and distract attention away from his pro-Nazi work, but there's near universal agreement that most of the bands on Bennett's "African" CD were Bennett himself under various aliases, and our man makes no secret that much of his new found fascination with Africa has to do with the rape, torture, murder and child sex abuse that have taken place in certain African states. Speaking of people who transferred their affections from Nazi imagery to Africa after they got busted, I think this scumbag would make even Leni Reifenstahl vomit.

@Strelnikov , thank you back for meeting my arguments in a more level-headed way. I admit too that my tail was waving a bit high in my first post.

”I disagree with your argument that there is no problem beyond the core of open fascists.”

If that is how the argument came across to you, then let me clarify: The open fasciststs, nazis, separatists stand for the far far far highest amount of terrorist crimes in Europe. Of course they also have ties to the 'Moderate nationalist' (not open fascists) parties that are now rising all over Europe who are I'm sure you know, spreading xenophobia and separatist attitudes to a frightening amount of people. You can hear it on the streets. On the pubs. Everywhere. But why go on about that when your blog is about ”neo-fascists burrowing their way into a subculture near you”?Well if art is not separated from greater social struggle, then why should this cause be? 'We are dealing with something else here' does not hold. This poses a question to me: In the face of immediate large-scale danger, what are your priorities, and what should the prioroties of the antifascist movement be? That does NOT mean that neo-fascism/racism in subculture has no relevance or is not something that deserves to be looked into. It simply puts it in context and hopefully tells us how careful we must be not to make the wrong enemies.

”Of course, that bit [the 'meta-political fascist' thing] is extremely difficult to make decisions about and deal with. But that is no excuse not to try”

I respect that you realize ther extreme difficulty of the matter. One thing that I look upon with suspicion here is the "certain strains of fascism has adopted a strategy by which they deny being fascists … promoting cultural concepts, etc., that will help normalise and make acceptable aspects of fascist belief paving way for …" talk repeated with some variations. It throws suspicion left right and center. It shows a lack of understanding for the many reasons for re-appropriation or transgression and it gives people the feeling that they could be next, and that their objections and denials would matter as much as they did for Urbain Grandier. My guess is that is where the overreactions to you 'simply raising the matter' lies.

You can not stop transgression and it is the wrong battle to fight. I believe it is better to have a very clear view about what specific opinions and organisations we do not want to bleed into this.

A while back I went to see a Laibach gig . It was crap, but nevermind. There were some people there with LMHR logos on their backs walking around, not seemingly objecting to the Malevich-inspired black cross armlets, but rather talking to people. I saw no objections. In Germany, anti-fascist organizations even promotes neo-folk, industrial, p.e events. If I was a fascist or similair, I would be more than a little intimidated by that if I was trying to gain some ground in the scene. You may not agree with these methods but I am yet to be convinced that you have a better option if indeed, you are serious about 'not hurting the scene itself' (which I'd like to believe although I find many comments here and there pointing at the exact opposite).

”And I certainly disagree with the argument that all music should be made available when such the resulting sales, eg., are used to fund fascist activity or feed into the wider process of helping create a culture in which fascism can grow.”

I'm ambiguous about this as I loathe censorship. Targeting the stalls with information and flyers to fans and sellers– fine by me. Letting the people who sell things that you know feeds fascist activities, know what you think about that - go for it. If you go to an event, pay the fee and are worried afterwards that your money goes to fascist activities, steal something from the merch-table. I'll block the view for you if I'm there. But I suggest we be careful with the ” helping create a culture in which fascism can grow” because inhumane ideals can grow in any culture and can look radically different in them all. And in no way am I going to be intimidated by any more-radical-than-thou approach here because it is less clever and something people should grow out of.

And I see that the shit-digging goes on but the 'meta-political fascist' thing seem strangely distant from these mostly ancient provocations going too far.

"William Bennett is the most middle class guardian reading liberal bore imaginable, just read his blog."

Is that the same blog where he reviews films like:

"The Beast In Heat, 1977 - []the breathtakingly beautiful Macha Magall as the sadistic SS officer is Italo-exploitation heaven"The Gestapo's Last Orgy, 1977 (*****)easily the best of 70s nazisploitation with qualities surely overlooked for belonging to such a reviled genre."

Anonymous said..."REALLY hope all this digging up of old Whitehouse stuff brings William Bennett himself into this argument".....

Perhaps it already has? "there is not a left or right side. just a lot of wrong. both sides deserve the world they choose to live in" sounds like just his level of faux-amoral twaddle.

Neither 'Cut Hands' nor 'Extreme Music From Africa' can be accurately dismissed as "old stuff", and while we're about it, can anyone not have viewed Trevor Brown's abhorrent cover art for the latter without immediately thinking of the Rwandan genocide?

yeah that's the same blog. I think you've made the mistake of assuming i'm arguing, or that your predicable comebacks about things i'm already well aware of in any way detract from the valid points i can't be bothered to explain here in favour of sarcastic one-liners. :( sorry about that.

Q - Isn't that all a lot of extrapolation for a badge on a picture and Jeff's (Rushton's) voice on one Death In June song?

A - If you can be arsed to read the original comment, the accusation above is that Geff Rushton was (quote) a "twat" for having his photo taken wearing an SS badge and for singing for Death In June. And, no, Einstein, that isn't "a lot" of extrapolation, because he WAS a twat for doing those things, and in fact that conclusion isn't even extrapolation, it's just a conclusion ;)

Good call on the comment about not understanding logic. The White South African Nazi Eugene Terreblanche was African, so even if William Bennett was also African, that wouldn't prove he's not a Nazi sympathiser. But if you apply logic to Bennett's "African" music, Bennett's not African, therefore his music isn't African. His music might be influenced by Africa (a tiny bit), but even the Nazi band Skrewdriver were influenced by African music (in their case by R&B), so again being influenced by something proves nothing. Now rewind to Bennett's statement about opposing "Negro influence" in music.

In the same way, if you apply logic to the belief that all artists should be free to respect no boundaries, because they're... artists (which is already nonsense simply because it's a circular argument), and that artists should be free to offend whoever the hell they like, then, logically, protestors should also be free to offend whoever they like - including, in this case, to offend supporters of these stupid bands. People who defend these bands advocate freedom of expression, as long as that freedom only applies to... themselves and their friends!

No-one forced these wankers to spend decades pumping out Nazi imagery. They CHOSE to do what they did. They charted their own course and reveled in the pain they caused to victims of Fascism and of sexual violence, now at least the gutless fuck-wits could have decency to face the reaction they deliberately provoked without whining about it all the time.

Been following this blog +/- since it's inception but not posted any comments as it seems the usual infighting/mud-slinging has sadly detracted from "the facts".

Having just received a copy of the LMHR petition to stop the Slimelight gig happening, I spotted several potential inconsistencies:

1)"The Nazi organisation Stormfront is promoting the event and have declared that its supporters will descend on Islington for the night".

Rubbish - there is ONE post with FOUR comments on the SF forum, TWO of them correcting typo errors, & ALL posted by the same person! Admittedly 1 of the posts states "Thanks to the SF members who have PM'ed me who are attending the concert as well. Should be an interesting evening!"

Not exactly what I'd term "promotion". And "it's supporters will descend on Islington" sounds a bit like a mass invasion of the barbarian hordes - I'd put £50 on the table that no more than 20 of them turn up!

2)"The event is organised by Tony Wakeford". ????

Not according to all other sources mentioned here.

3) ("All of the acts on the night) decorate their set with swastika symbols and Nazi images".

First I've heard about that as well.

Until everyone concerned with stopping these kind of events gets the facts straight, count me out! I am not a right-wing sympathiser, or a nit-picker - I just like things to be properly researched & in general most of the more serious-minded posters here are well on the case. But LMHR seem to be....well.... exaggerating a wee bit? Not good politics comrades! The kind of small details that the opposition leap on in order to invalidate the more salient facts.

Hope I haven't missed some essential part of the plot here.

On a "personal involvement" note: we can all make mistakes - a few years ago I ended up on a compilation cd/book with "crab" (he of the "need their heads kicking in" manifesto)- the book included an interview with Boyd Rice - if I had known that beforehand, there is NO WAY I would have agreed to contribute anything to the project - all down to a lack of vigilance rather than anything more sinister. Fortunately the name we used was temporary & fairly anonymous, otherwise.....would we have been tainted with the same brush as Mr. Rice et al? Quite possibly, if some of your contributors got their way.

Been following this blog +/- since it's inception but not posted any comments as it seems the usual infighting/mud-slinging has sadly detracted from "the facts".

Having just received a copy of the LMHR petition to stop the Slimelight gig happening, I spotted several potential inconsistencies:

1)"The Nazi organisation Stormfront is promoting the event and have declared that its supporters will descend on Islington for the night".

Rubbish - there is ONE post with FOUR comments on the SF forum, TWO of them correcting typo errors, & ALL posted by the same person! Admittedly 1 of the posts states "Thanks to the SF members who have PM'ed me who are attending the concert as well. Should be an interesting evening!"

Not exactly what I'd term "promotion". And "it's supporters will descend on Islington" sounds a bit like a mass invasion of the barbarian hordes - I'd put £50 on the table that no more than 20 of them turn up!

2)"The event is organised by Tony Wakeford". ????

Not according to all other sources mentioned here.

3) ("All of the acts on the night) decorate their set with swastika symbols and Nazi images".

First I've heard about that as well.

Until everyone concerned with stopping these kind of events gets the facts straight, count me out! I am not a right-wing sympathiser, or a nit-picker - I just like things to be properly researched & in general most of the more serious-minded posters here are well on the case. But LMHR seem to be....well.... exaggerating a wee bit? Not good politics comrades! The kind of small details that the opposition leap on in order to invalidate the more salient facts.

Hope I haven't missed some essential part of the plot here.

On a "personal involvement" note: we can all make mistakes - a few years ago I ended up on a compilation cd/book with "crab" (he of the "need their heads kicking in" manifesto)- the book included an interview with Boyd Rice - if I had known that beforehand, there is NO WAY I would have agreed to contribute anything to the project - all down to a lack of vigilance rather than anything more sinister. Fortunately the name we used was temporary & fairly anonymous, otherwise.....would we have been tainted with the same brush as Mr. Rice et al? Quite possibly, if some of your contributors got their way.

Kudos to the above poster who made the observation that many of these people, these 'occultists', are pretty delusional on a very fundamental level. I think this an overlooked element when it comes to understanding the nonsense that is regularly peddled in the neofolk/post-industrial/martial/whatever clique.

It should come as little surprise that people receptive to all that nonsense would be easy marks for the nonsense of people like Devi and Evola and all this blathering about 'atavism'. You may as well believe in the freaking Easter Bunny at that point.

Come on...all this 'atavism' talk that people like Moynihan promote, care to provide any evidence that it's anything more credible than belief in crystal healing or similar claims?

I think anti-fascist campaigners here should do the same at some point; support a gig by groups who take an anti-fascist, anti-racist stance. I have no doubt that there are many musicians who take such a position, not least because they often contribute to this blog.

Here's a mail sent out by Gaya Donadio (Hagshadow - organiser of the Sol / 6 Comm concert)), which mboi:

We would like to inform you and make you aware that both we and a very large number of Artist/bands are being attacked online by a few Ultra Puritans, who have a personal axe to grind with particular Artists.

Their malicious slander has only one purpose - to either incite hatred or to curtail the freedom of Thought & action within Music & Art.

We simply ask you look at the information via the links that we have provided.

If you can find the time to add your comments to these blogs or take any form of action to support the very diverse genres being targeted, from Noise to Neo folk and beyond, we and all concerned, both Artists and listeners would be very grateful.

We would like to also highlight the fact that these same people are slandering the Slimelight club in London. A club whose diversity over the years cannot be disputed.

Are we to allow these New puritans to ban any form of expression which they personally do not agree !

We have always ignored these rather pathetic people in the past but they have spread their misinformation to organisations such as LoveMusicHateRacism - who in fact seem to be just as vindictive as the originators of the slander and disinformation, as they do not allow free debate on the matter.

Sorry to disappoint you Zeena, but I have real roots in the community, both in Islington and in the extreme noise scene. I've been involved in experimental noise since 1980 and know the scene inside-out. LMHR may be slack about presenting their facts, but, to be fair, they've got bigger fish to fry and can't afford to spend weeks minutely arguing every single tiny point - for that reason, it must be tempting for the Slimelight's apologists to confuse LMHR with the rest of us, but I'd strongly advise that you don't.

Ditto the chump (probably Gaya herself) who says "Gaya is a great person, none of these detractors have a clue what they are talking about". Really?! Time and time again the Fascist apologists ignore detailed evidence and well-reasoned arguments, and ask us to accept their assurances, usually without any evidence, solely on the strength of their say-so.

Gaya Donadio is a person who's responded to the controversy about the Sol Invictus gig, by booking another gig featuring Peter Sotos (Whitehouse), author of "Nazi Triumphs", and Kevin Tomkins (Whitehouse and Sutcliffe Jugend), author of "Legalise Child Abuse". Gaya Donadio is therefore not a "great person", unless you personally are the kind of jackass who approves of crap like "Nazi Triumphs" and "Legalise Child Abuse".

A few points in response to the Donadio / Leagas mail (I forgot to mention that it is signed by both of them, not just Donadio):

"who have a personal axe to grind"

It cannot be the case that I, for example, have a 'personal grudge' against any of the artists involved, since I have never met any of them or had any interaction with them other than via this blog. It is possible that they think that the organisers of Islington ALARM, Love Music Hate Racism, etc., have some grudge against them, but I can't comment on that since I don't know any of these people either.

I think the 'personal grudge' angle is disingenuous because it conveniently tries to obscure the fact that groups and individuals from entirely different social, cultural and political backgrounds have taken objection to the gig quite independently, while this response shifts the emphasis from a political argument, in which they would have to defend the substance of what they do, to a personal one that is therefore not political or principled. It would be more honourable of them to openly defend their ideas and beliefs rather than cower behind the claim - against all the evidence - that their critics just 'have a personal axe to grind'.

"these same people"

As I say, it suits their argument to imply that everyone who opposes them is working together and shares the same point of view, and that all anti-fascists are responsible for the words and deeds of all other anti-fascists. This is patent nonsense. As I have repeatedly tried to explain, the main proponents of the protests have acted entirely independently. I have spoken to someone from LMHR in order to answer a few questions about the background of some of those involved in the gig, but neither I nor anyone else who writes for this blog has had any hand at all in framing their campaign. I support the LMHR campaign even if I disagree with particular formulations they have used: I support it because I'm glad to see anti-racist, anti-fascist campaigners start to pay attention to the issue - but that doesn't make me or this blog responsible for their decisions or their actions.

Imagine the furore if this blog was to argue the same thing in reverse - that everyone who supports the gig going ahead is responsible for the actions of everyone else who agrees with them? If a Stormfront bonehead attacks the anti-racist campaigners, should all of Slimelight's clientele be held responsible? In other words, imagine if we held every fan of Slimelight responsible for anything done by the fascists who undoubtedly exist in their mileu. This blog has always been careful not to make that mistake, so I don't see why our opponents should be allowed to get away with trying the same thing against us.

"Are we to allow these New puritans to ban any form of expression which they personally do not agree !"

This is as close as the message gets to making a real defence of the gig, and is really the essence of the arguments made, eg., in the Slimelight Facebook discussion, but it is nevertheless a complete smokescreen. There is plenty of music and plenty of artists any of us might dislike or disagree with quite radically without thinking for a moment that anyone should actively campaign against it. The arguments about Sol, Leagas, Donadio, etc., are specific to those people. A lot of bullshit is being posted online about 'bans', 'repression', 'authoriatrianism', 'puritans', etc., when all that is really happening is that those who support the campaign don't want this crap being peddled in our neighbourhood and in our clubs because it promotes fascism, racism, etc., and we will campaign, apply pressure, etc., to try to stop it. The idea that anyone should be allowed to say or do anything they want without opposition is not a position that could be taken seriously by anyone who gave it a moments thought. Of course, there are people who believe that the BNP and EDL should be allowed to do whatever they want without opposition, but anyone with any sense rejects that (and if you don't reject it, nothing anyone is going to say on this blog is likely to convince you to take a position against racism in a musical subculture). The only difference here (and it is a big difference in many ways, but not decisive in this regard at least) is that in this case we face the argument that this is 'art' and therefore above criticism.

The real content of this argument about 'the new puritans' is something like: "If they start by banning racists and fascists - who will they want to ban next? Cure fans??!?!", which rather misses the point.

A great irony being (despite the fact that the Stormfront forum posting is a quite transparent attempt at agent provocateurism) that if any genuine nazis do decide to 'descend' on the Slimelight will have been galvanised do so solely due to the publicity generated for the gig by the 'anti-fascist' blogs and sites opposing it. Not that I, or anyone else truthfully thinks this will happen. To make out otherwise is disingenuous and, like a sadly increasing amount of contributions to this forum, only serves to erode the integrity and credibility of the facts which are damning enough in themselves and require no embellishment. Were it not for the censorious publicty generated the gig would probably only attract the same weedy goths and dorks in jackboot and eyeliner who usually attend these Slimelight events. And anyone turning up to oppose it will not find the 'Battle of Waterloo Station Mk II' it is being increasingly promoted as and are going to feel rather foolish.

Not to mention that tediously dredging up what some post-Throbbing Gristle envelope pushers did approx 30 years ago (when they were in their early to late teens and no doubt came out with a lot of errant foolishness I can only expect they now regret – and in Sotos’ case, has described as a major regret) is simply ridiculous. Expose & confront Nazis wherever and whenever they raise their moronic heads but you are getting into seriously questionable territory when you bring decades old purposely transgressive and willfully offensive industrial culture *artworks* (however ideologically deplorable or infantile you may regard them) into the equation as that is quite unequivocally an issue of artistic expression rather than the legitimization of fascism within the pathetic neo-folk scene which I understood to be the express purpose of this blog. Conversely, as the attraction of the acts you have ‘exposed’ has now entered the mainstream domain you are inadvertently consolidating the ‘dangerous’ ‘outsider’ status which makes them attractive to their bedsit loner followers in the first place, whilst simultaneously reinforcing the siege mentality of the vast number who are NOT racists, fascists or nazi-sympathisers but are now regarding this campaign as one against freedom of speech and artistic expression.

If the group of singularly uncompromising anti-fascist ‘squadists’ who, in summer 1983, went along to a concert by one of the acts reviled above with the serious intention of ‘doing them’ under the erroneous belief they were a fascist act were astute enough to quickly realise it was just an “art thing” and they were “just trying to shock” (as did the police officers who attended a concert by the same band at Conway Hall 20 years later, following a campaign to prevent that event happening) I would have thought, nearly thirty years on, those more conversant with the scene would have at least arrived at a similar consensus.

""""A great irony being (despite the fact that the Stormfront forum posting is a quite transparent attempt at agent provocateurism) that if any genuine nazis do decide to 'descend' on the Slimelight will have been galvanised do so solely due to the publicity generated for the gig by the 'anti-fascist' blogs and sites opposing it.""""

Some variation of this argument has been posted here so many times that it seems like it must be the same person post it over and over under various names or just anonymously.

@Strelnikov:”I think anti-fascist campaigners here should do the same at some point; support a gig by groups who take an anti-fascist, anti-racist stance. I have no doubt that there are many musicians who take such a position ...”

Appreciated. But I get kind of curious about you think the criterias for hosting these bands should be then. Appeared on compilations with dodgy people in the past? Use of runes and European remanticism that you think might pamper to Traditionalism? Any lyrical referrenses to say, Evola's view on esoteric matters? We have all seen the attitudes to these things. This scene deals with them sometimes, like it or not. Wouldn't it be so much better to swallow some of that shit for the price of standing closer to actual xenophobia, discrimination and the real neo-fascist organizations if and when they show their ugly faces? Am I too 'rather missing the point'? But of course these attitudes do show up, it' just that it is ...everywhere:

Panthera: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3_cq5sXfIE

Johnny Rotten: "Until I see an Arab country, a Muslim country, with a democracy, I won't understand how anyone can have a problem with how they're treated."

It wasn't Gaya herself who said "Gaya is a wonderful person"-she wouldn't be so arrogant.It was me-Steve B.i know Gaya personally,which clearly most,ahem,"chumps" don't,and therefore i feel slightly better qualified to say how she is as a person.Censorship will not win this argument......

"Use of runes and European remanticism that you think might pamper to Traditionalism? Any lyrical referrenses to say, Evola's view on esoteric matters? "

It is a bit...intriguing, for want of a better term, that this stuff is so prevalent. If for no other reason than you have to wonder if these guys can even think of anything else to sing about, or any other visual aesthetic. I mean, the sound could remain more or less similar, but why such lazy devotion to these same recurring themes? They want it to be about Europe? There are many more things in European history, many fascinating things that are arguably far more interesting and intellectually stimulating, than the narrow set of interests we see in 'neofolk'.

They want to sing about war? Europe has seen more wars than just world war 2, you know...but none of those get too much attention in this genre.

Philosophers? How about they mix it up with some Hume, Descartes, Sartre, Locke, Mill, Bertnard Russell, or something other than the tiny clique of faux philosophers that this genre fixates on.

Even if these guys just want to limit themselves to some nebulous idea of "Europe", there is a hell of a lot more to Europe and the history of Europe than the four or five recurring topics that these guys are obsessed with.

Finally...good god. Looking at some of the album covers posted ion this blog...these people really need to get some better graphic artists. The Eisne Garde or whatever it was called is sporting the single ugliest shade of green I have ever seen in my life. And that is INCLUDING every color used in the 70's.

Some points that should be considered regarding Strelnikov's response to the petition above, bearing in mind that the petition does not tackle the question of a level of far right involvement in this scene and that some of the work on this blog is undoubtedly correct:

1 - It is clear that this whole campaign and the roots of this blog are in Stewart Homes initial work on Tony Wakeford and DIJ and continues with Karl Blakes comments. There is no doubt that Stewart Home was once a fan of Crisis and then Death In June. He contributed/gave information to Forbes for his book on DIJ (misery and purity) and contributed to Tony Wakefords ON magazine and wrote a forward to his lyric book. He even named one of his novels after a DIJ track. This blog, I would suggest, has been stimulated by Home in the first instance. So the claim that it lays in some personal disputes is not far wrong - it began with some personal disputes and harmed reputations.

2 - To say that the community of Islington is opposed to this gig, or , that the campaign has real roots in the community is disingenuous. If you tell a Somali shop keeper that there is going to be a gig round the corner from his shop by a bunch of crypto fascists or in LMHR's case a bunch of Nazis then of course he would oppose it. The community of Islington though is not made up of Revolutionary socialists or Anarchists who would know much about this scene. Yes some of LMHR may be trade unionists but they are not representing the community at large.

3 - When you talk about `our clubs' and `our neighbourhood' who is the `our'? Actually this blog and the campaign against the gig doesn't represent the community of Islington, it represents a small but vocal minority of the community. Now that is fine, but don't exaggerate the extent of what you do or who you represent because that is the same kind of shit that the SWP does and which always makes them a laughing stock. The SWP once talked about `our' community when advertising a book on Malcolm X by Kevin Ovenden only be made aware in one area that the students and teachers who were trying to present themselves as representatives of the community had found a large presence of Black History group activists telling them to get lost. If they had spoken to this group first and tried to have a discussion with them they may have made greater inroads. So Strel, tell it like it is and people won't get so pissed off with your position.

@Anonymous: "Stewart Homes initial work on Tony Wakeford and DIJ and continues with Karl Blakes comments."

If Stewart Home ever had any sort of positive / supportive relationship with Death in June then the one thing you can be damn sure about is that he hasn't any more. The essays on Death in June, etc., on his site clearly contain a lot of arguments and information that various contributors to this site (including myself) have drawn on heavily - but we alone are responsible for what we have done with that information, in just the same way that Islington ALARM, Principia Dialectica, LMHR and others are responsible for whatever they conclude about the information on this site and elsewhere.

The only thing I ever read by Home from some DinJ (or Sol?) or similar journal (I can't remember which) was an interview with Dave Tibet. Frankly I couldn't believe that the editor had published it, given that he was openly contemptuous of Tibet (the thing that sticks in my mind is where he says to Tibet: "I see your releases as novelty records, in the tradition of the Pork Dukes....").

While I understand people's curiosity, I find the issue of who is 'behind' this site boring - I always intended that readers should have to take the arguments at face value and respond them as political arguments rather than as emanations of this or that personality, etc. Consequently I haven't said much about this in the past. BUT, for anyone who cares, let me say that Stewart Home does not run this site and has never even contributed to it, unless he has done so anonymously.

As for Karl Blake, he has contributed a number of comments, many of which I collected in a recent post (with his permission). Beyond that he has no responsibility for this blog, either editorially or as a contributor (he has never written a post as such, I just collected his comments into a post). He is clearly active in other forums campaigning around the same issues - for which he should be congratulated - but he has no other connection with this blog.

"To say that the community of Islington is opposed to this gig"

If someone claimed that the entire Islington 'community' supported the protest, they would be lying. The point is that it will be supported by sections of the community who have a right to be heard. In common parlance, saying that a campaign "has community support" is not the same as saying that it has the support of the entire community. In all likelihood those who support the campaign will be from those most affected by the issues (racism, fascism, etc), and they have a right to be taken seriously.

You seem to claim that people will only support the campaign because they have been in some way duped into it. Of course you may believe that they are not aware of all the facts, and you may want to put your own arguments to them, as is your right - but they are capable of making their own decisions.

"When you talk about `our clubs' and `our neighbourhood' who is the `our'?"

I'm simply asserting that people have the right to take action concerning local events and amenities. I don't pretend that the LMHR campaign reflects everyone in the community (if nothing else, the local fascists are unlikely to be impressed; more seriously, there will be others who don't think it appropriate to take such action, for whatever reasons). But then, the argument does not depend on getting unanimous support from the community. And I am confident that those groups and individuals who take a vocal, public position on the issue will openly be a small proportion of those actively concerned about it. Certainly anti-racists and anti-fascists would eb the majority in the community.

I don't understand your point about the SWP talking about 'our' community.

"the arguments about Sol Invictus and similar groups hinge around the claim that certain strains of fascism have adopted a strategy by which they deny being fascists and concentrate instead on promoting cultural concepts, etc., that will help normalise and make acceptable key elements of fascist belief. The intention is not to recruit directly to fascist organisations but to create communities, sub-cultures, currents of opinion, etc., that are more conducive to fascism, thus preparing the ground for future fascist growth."

Some variation of this argument has been posted here so many times that it seems like it must be the same person posting it over and over under various names or just anonymously.

The point about the SWP and the Malcolm X incident is that there is an assumption often made by the SWP and I think in this case by LMHR that they have roots in the community and support for their particular take on the politics of an event. In the Malcom X book case they thought that they could recruit black community activists because they had the `right' argument not realising that a significant part of the black community had a very different take on Malcolm X and saw the SWP as imposing their theoretical position on them. They didn't and wouldn't listen to the ideas of the black activists and therefore got nowhere with their rigid Trotskyist line. The Black history group were having none of it and got very angry with the party activists. This example shows how the SWP like LMHR are assuming they have the right position on this gig and are going to impose that on the wider public who are now looking at a situation where they think `Nazis' like Blood and Honour Skinheads will be turning up in hoards to salute Nazi symbols and look to beat up members of the local ethnic minorities. This is an amplification and exaggeration of the situation which is typical of this organisation and may actually backfire by enticing the B and H's in. I also suggest that the inflexibility of a strict Marxist approach, in your case, Strelnikov, may make you see things in only one way and may mean that you don't consider other arguments. Take your discussion of David Tibets C93 some posts ago. You dismiss his mystical nonsense, theological claptrap, and music for your strict materialist line where nothing can be considered beyond the material. For you anything mystical is nonsense. Another way of looking at this could be that science doesn't have all the answers yet and as it develops we may understand more about death, life, the wider universe etc. Just because Tibet is not a materialist doesn't mean he is not expressing some interesting ideas about life and death. (I can hear the materialist laughter as I write this but I do think there is a serious point here Strelly son!)

@Zeena: Message received. The difference is that the argument about 'metapolitical fascism' is a substantive idea that is worth debating, and so we have tried to debate it and discuss it repeatedly here, whereas the accusation that the post at Stormfront is the work of an agent provocateur is simply speculation until someone provides either proof or at least a cogent argument in support. It isn't true, as some have claimed, that Stormfront per se are promoting the gig - it looks like one of their contributors saying that he and a few other of his fascist friends are going there to enjoy the gig. That seems plausible to me, given other posts on the site about this, and related, genres, so I don't see why people think it to be 'obviously' a provocation.

@Anon: on Tibet, etc., while I am a Marxist of sorts (to the best of my ability, at least) I also own, and have a studied, a lot of the literature about Buddhism, Sufism, Gnosticism, esotericism, etc., and I do not simply dismiss it out of hand as 'mystical claptrap'. I actually find some really powerful ideas in there, albeit often in a confused form. The difference is that I find Tibet's ideas incredibly banal, having no discernable 'spiritual depth' whatsoever, if I can call it that without my Marxist friends all beating me up the next time they see me.

As far as I can tell Tibet's interests are superstitious and hammy rather than 'spiritual'. On the other hand, if people want to spout crap about Gnosticism that's their right. My objection is that it is irresponsible to play with ideas such as Savitri Devi's 'Hitler as Kalki', etc. If you are going to play with the ideas of virulent antisemitic scum like Devi, you better get it right or you can reasonably expect to be held responsible.

@Anon: and regarding the SWP and the Black History Group, both of them have political agendas, and they disagree about their interpretation of, eg., Malcolm X. There is nothing wrong with that. It certainly doesn't mean though that Black Nationalists somehow 'own' both Malcolm X and the black community and have the right to speak for it as a whole (though they definitely reflect ideas that have a very substantial support within that community). Neither does it mean that the SWP exist somehow entirely outside of that community. Certainly the Black History Group would reject a Marxist account of of the life of Malcolm X. That much is inevitable. But I don't see what's wrong with a group of Marxists offering a Marxist interpretation of such things. As it happens I read Kevin Ovendon's book many years ago and thought it excellent. Of course, Malcolm X himself came to reject the core ideas of black nationalism.

I don't think for a moment that the SWP believed they had the right to speak for 'the black community' or that that 'community' would automatically agree with them. Indeed, I expect that they would understand very clearly that their interpretation was controversial and would have to be argued for. They would certainly expect black nationalists to disagree with their interpretation.

Come on, don't be daft. As anyone with half a brian can see, the Stormfront posting is quite patently an 'agent provocateur' post, just as the laughable 'Son of St George' one on the original Slimelight posting is as well. No idea what sort of misguided cretin was responsible for either, who they are affilited to or their intentions and agenda, but they are playing a perilously game which theoretically opens up the LMHR types who may turn up to picket this gig open to attack.

"Gaya Donadio is a person who's responded to the controversy about the Sol Invictus gig, by booking another gig" - factually incorrect; that gig was booked ages ago, certainly before this weak controversy, I think I heard about it before the Sol Invictus one in fact. Pretty amazing lineup, I'm looking forward to it even tho I'm not the biggest fan of every one of the acts, and have criticisms of some of them with which the supporters of this blog would no doubt agree! :)

I would say there is NO 'line'. If genuine fascists tried to hold a meeting i'd say any and every means and tactic were acceptable which would by necessity involve force as it is the only language nazis understand. AFA successfully battered fuck out of the nazis throughout the 80s and 90s and to a great degree removed their physical presence from the streets. I most certainly do not believe in extending the concept of 'free speech' to those whose raison d'etre is terrorising and attacking those they perceive as enemies into silence and whose ideology translates into fear, oppression and murder.

However, I really fail to see what that has to do with invoking legislation and mainstream political affiliated campaigns to stop a bunch of goths going to see some crappy bands at a poor man's Torture Garden club which, unfortunately, the focus of this offensive has become.

Even though I feel that a lot of what this site has done to illustrate some more than just simply dodgy ideas in certain parts of a certain subculture in a (most of the time) rather sensible way (as pointing out that putting out a tasteless compilation with whatever kind of misled transgressive intention about 30 years ago doesn't qualify one to be a nazi), it annoys me a bit is that you seem to follow Stewart Home's line concerning his involvement with certain people in the past without question(ing). He did indeed contribute to Robert Forbes' book on Death in June and wrote an introduction to Wakeford's book of lyrics and trying to say that this introduction was always meant tongue-in-cheek is rather ridiculous. At the time when it was published (1994) it was not that simple to search the internet to realize that he “borrowed“ from other texts and what would that have proved except that Home's attitude to other people's work is a rather “loose“ one. To claim his praise for Wakeford's (admittedly) limited lyrics was so obviously exaggerated that everybody must have realized it was a joke is not convincing either. Nobody here thinks that Andrew King's “Let Wotan...“ is ironic because it is so absolutely over the top. What I feel is that Home tries to re-write history or “clean up the past and its errors“ (to quote the band from which he borrowed a songtitle to write his novel “Come before Christ and murder love“) and concerning the interview he conducted with David Tibet for Wakeford's short-lived On-magazine I feel that just because he calls Current 93's music novelty records once in the entire interview does not mean he's taking the piss, especially when you read the whole passage: “Home: When I listen to your CDs, one of the things I'm often tempted to do is treat them as novelty records.Tibet: Thank you. Do you listen to the Chipmunks after playing Current 93?Home: No, I prefer the Pork Dudes or Shampoo. Seriously though, I have a great love of novelty records and to me, if I put on a Crass album, that's a novelty record because the ideology they're pushing is so absurd.“What I'm trying to say is that Home was indeed at one time some kind of fan and saying that everything was just a joke is rather hypocritical and annoying. Apart from the fact that the zeal and tastelessness (what do you think of someone who uses Wakeford's weight as a leitmotif to take the piss?) with which he now hates some of his former idols reminds me of those people who used to smoke and would now like to burn every smoker at the stake.

Whoever said "censorship will not win this argument" is right, evidence will win this argument, and, ironically, it is Whitehouse themselves who've tried (unsuccessfully) to use to police action to silence their critics and censor people who circulate information about.... their own past!

Gaya Donadio could respond to the fact that the band she's promoting - Sutcliffe Jugend, published a track called "Legalise Child Abuse", but I doubt she'll have the courage (Gaya herself is performing alongside Sutcliffe Jugend, using the name Anti-Child League), and if the Stormfront post was from an agent-provocateur, then maybe an agent-provocateur also hacked into the 100% pro-Nazi "Blood & Honour" website and inserted the article about Death In June into B&H magazine issue 38, without any of the Nazis who run that website ever noticing?

Is it just me, or do half of these comment sections eventually turn in to arguments about Stewart Home?

Whether or not Home is entirely honest about the issues that M outlines above seems rather immaterial to the evidence that this blog presents. All the attempts to turn this in to an argument about Home are a distraction, intentional or otherwise, from the real issues.

@M.: "What I'm trying to say is that Home was indeed at one time some kind of fan"

The thing is that, although I don't accept this argument, even if it were true it wouldn't matter in the slightest: it would matter a great deal if what interested you was the biography of Stewart Home, or the psychology of radical artists, or whatever, but when you are talking about politics, all that matters is what people do and say right now. And the fact is that Stewart Home, whether you agree with his wider worldview or not, has clearly adopted a militant anti-fascist position. What's more, he hasn't done it from the safety of the inner recesses of his conscience, but has done so publicly, and has taken the flak for it. Any speculation as to his motives is idle chatter. Worse than that, in practice it amounts to questioning his motives in order to distract attention from, or cast doubt on, his arguments.

The idea that Home (or Karl Blake, etc.) initiated the arguments and got the ball rolling, and that all subsequent commentary is simply a coda to their complaints, also conveniently ignores the fact that the information they have provided didn't all originate with them but is overwhelmingly based on long and careful study of the relevant literature - eg., going back through years of Searchlight and similar journals to find the links between the various actors in this drama. The arguments against fascist infiltration of subculture did not spring fully-formed from the brain of Stewart Home, like Athena from the head of Zeus, but are based on years of research and reporting by previous anti-fascist campaigners.

The same arguments apply to Karl Blake. If it were true that this blog operated on the basis of guilt by association, as many commenters assume, then Karl Blake would be one of the enemy, as he has played in Sol Invictus, etc. But that is not the position of this blog. When Karl realised what Tony Wakeford's real agenda was, he broke with him completely and began to campaign against him and similar characters.

If, instead of merely announcing that he was 'no longer interested in the ideas of the National Front', Tony Wakeford did something similar - using his credibility within, and knowledge of, this milieu to campaign against fascist influence, we would not be having this argument today.

I’m a spanish guy, without a defined ideology, just a citizen, camping in Madrid and fighting for my/our/your right of a REAL DEMOCRACY. And yes, I really enjoy a lot of that bands you are trying to ban. In fact, I’ve been in some of this concerts at Slimelight.

Is this the best you can do? Don’t you feel a little bit silly?

THIS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Spanish_protests) is an important issue. An important movement that makes our society a little bit better, not your stupid campaign.

Anyway, while you are looking at your navel, feeling very proud of your actions and ideas (other’s ideas…) have a break to think that there are people doing really important things for our world.

The Spanish protests are indeed far more important than anything that goes on at Slimelight. But I can't imagine anyone on this blog disagreeing with that.

Perhaps what you are missing out on is the possibility that it may be possible to campaign for and against many things, small and large. In other words, as someone else said, it may be possible to "fart and chew gum at the same time".

As an aside, when I started this blog it was not because I thought the issue was the most important thing I could spend my time on (and, usually, I spend very little time working on this blog or campaigning about the issues connected with it) but because I was astonished that so little was being done (in the UK, at least) to address the issue at all or try to discuss it. As the issue is complex, and involves looking at development sin fascist ideology and new subcultural movements, etc., I thought it worth talking about. Obviously that doesn't mean that I think it the most important issue in the world, in the same sense that, if I argue with someone who makes a casually racist comment, I am not implicitly arguing that their casual racism is the most important problem in the world today - it's just that I happen to be there at the time and respond appropriately.

@ENTartETE: "I get kind of curious about you think the criterias for hosting these bands should be then. Appeared on compilations with dodgy people in the past? Use of runes and European remanticism that you think might pamper to Traditionalism? Any lyrical referrenses to say, Evola's view on esoteric matters?"

I would consider all of those things, look at their statements, etc., etc., and try to come to a judgement. Most of all I would look at what they say and do today, and what actions they are prepared to support.

Making such judgements correctly is fraught with difficulties, but to me the real problem is that people have avoided that difficulty in the past simply by suspending judgement completely, which seems to me an abdication of responsibility.

@Strelnikov Just some points to clarify what I have said. Home's anti-fascist stance is obvious and cannot be doubted at all. All I'm saying is that why not admitting that he had been a fanboy himself once. I'm not quite sure why you “don't accept that argument“. I've given a few examples that are certainly more than just some vague speculation or “idle chatter“. You yourself stated that he has “taken the flak for“ making clear his anti-fascist position. Then he should be brave enough to simply say (like John Eden for example) that he enjoyed some of these artists before he realized what their agenda was. Anyway, you're right that this shouldn't turn into a discussion about Home's views as there are definitely more important issues to deal with but just to make one thing clear: my post was in no way intended to be some kind of distraction, “intentional or otherwise“ as Just another comment indicated. I think it is more than legitimate to critizize some people's holier-than-thou attitude without undermining the credibility of their arguments.

it seems to me it is very hypocritical to even suggest using violence as a means to prevent people from going to these so-called fascist gigs. very few of the people i know at these gigs have been violent, even though many have been drunk...but from my extrem leftfield friends, many of them seem to think its perfectly legitimate to kick peoples heads in as long as their beliefs dont *seem* to match their own. it seems a bit barbaric to me, as if you have failed to find further intellectual arguments, and the last way out is to use violence. its not gonna stop these artists. if anything, just make their case stronger - ie freedom of art/expression. so, sure, by kicking peoples heads in you will probably look cool to your lame friends but also you will ruin someones life, and for the "scene" you will just give further reason to provoke.

if you want to ban nazi symbolism in art, then why not ban other symbols such as religious ones? where do we draw the limit? who should be the judge? the problem isn't with symbols or imagery but with fucked up values- just as little as guns kill, or penises rape - its the people with sick minds that kill and rape. still, there are people who like to play with the imagery and portray themselves as serial killers or rapists (e.g. Marilyn Manson and crew)..its just art for fucks sake. don't forget the cruel stuff that their "idols" did...disgusting rape, murders and so on... why allow them but ban fascist-imagery bands? makes no sense...just let them all play around and if you don't like it, you are free to avoid going to these gigs.

Musicians don't exist in isolation. They present ideas and form subcultures which can affect the real-world actions of at least a part of their audience. If artists enjoy "playing" with extreme imagery it seems reasonable to consider why they've chosen a particular set of images and what their audience is getting from it.

It's rare to see anybody defend Skrewdriver's music or Hitler's writing as "just art" because it's clear that they tie into a wider set of political beliefs. Similarly, Tony Wakeford's membership in the National Front shows his acceptance of political ideology which clearly influenced his work at the time.

If we accept (as Manson seems to) that "the passion for destruction is a creative urge", kicking somebody's head in could indeed be an artistic act. As could Yukio Mishima's suicide, which fascinates so many neofolk artists. If you'd like to censor that poster's textual incitement to violence, why not Peter Sotos' incitement to rape? It's necessary that speech must be limited somewhere. That's why we have laws against things like libel and conspiracy to murder. What remains is the question of whether the musicians involved with the Slimelight gig actually promote ideas deserving of such restrictions.

It seems that the best "evidence" here is the assumption that anybody who doesn't begin their inquiry into European history or philosophical ideas of power and control from a strictly leftist perspective must be part of a Gramscian conspiracy. In short, that the lack of a coherent ideology is proof that there must be one. Perhaps this is a convenient way of turning the campaigners' need to prove that these people are fascists into the performers' need to politicise themselves through public statements.

Just to let you know: I am Russian and I’m going to attend this event because I like this music, I like this lyric and I am really exciting about North European mythology. If you guys going to stop me in front of the club named me fascist because of music I like, I will just show you photo of my grandma and granddad who fought in the World War 2 time in Russia against real Nazis in real danger, in real fire, in real pain and horror. By naming neo-folk fans fascist you not offend me, you just assault me and my family. Think about this.

I don't want to "censor that poster's textual incitement to violence". I don't want to ban these gigs. The solution is not in censoring or banning. The solution is not proactive because that only raises a bunch of even bigger problems (some of which i mentioned above). Instead its better to allow posters, gigs etc and use reactive laws, so that if a poster or a gig or whatever is in conflict with the laws, the people responsible will be punished. The solution is not to use proactive or reactive VIOLENCE from antifa people because then they take the laws in their own hands, because they have no right to judge others.

But I can tell from your comment what this is about... the key word is "conspiracy". Regardless of how many intellectual comments are posted here, whether its from left or right politicians, historians, philosophers etc it is useless because people like you will always see these conspiracies and the comments from "us" just become part of the conspiracy...just like people who believe the moon landings were fake will never believe in images, moon dust etc.

Your comment is quite naive. "...must be part of a Gramscian conspiracy". Really? Is that the only solution you can see? Then you have a lot to learn.

Also, it is sad that so many leftfield people like you want to enforce your own political/cultural/religious/etc beliefs on others. Learn to respect that not everyone has the same beliefs as you. I know for a fact that many of the people who go to these "fascist" gigs also go to anarchist punk gigs and love it. why? because we are openminded people who love variety. I just ask you to leave us alone. What you do in your own house or at your rallies I don't really care about (as long as you don't break laws or hurt or threaten others). I respect it, and only ask that you respect us. Don't try to turn us into stupid sheep who trot after you. We can think for ourselves, thank you.

My suggestion: go to the gig and find out for yourself! I think you will be pleasantly surprised to find out that (1) none of the lyrics is breaking any laws or is anywhere near about fascism or similar (2) the people at the gig are really nice and friendly - some you may even unexpectedly know since many years. But: be aware that you don't get attacked by your leftist friends when you leave the club.

Thanks, but to clarify: My reference to a conspiracy was ironic one intended to highlight the *lack* of reasons to ban the gig, which I will be attending. Merrily. I don't believe doing so means I have to condone every choice made by the bands for the sake of "art".

Reading between the lines of various comments, perhaps it would be useful if I stated that this blog does not believe force or the threat of violence should be used to stop anyone attending the gig or the venue: people should be argued with, petitioned, etc., to not attend the gig, and to boycott Slimelight until they see sense about the kind of acts they put on. Pressure should be put on the council and anyone else that can influence these things to take action to make sure that racism and fascism are not being promoted at the venue.

So why did you allow the first comment on this thread by Crab - If you publish a comment that says "you will get your head kicked in" whatever your position is, if you are identified as someone who may be going to this gig. If you don't believe that the threat of violence should be used then why did you allow that comment? Seems to me as though you are trying to have it both ways i.e. push your argument above that "people should be argued with, petitioned etc.." whilst also encouraging the threat of violence to scare people off.

@Anonymous: "So why did you allow the first comment on this thread by Crab"

I occasionally block comments if they are racist, etc., but I don't block comments simply because I disagree with them. That would make it impossible to have any sort of debate at all - which, after all, is the point of the blog.

Crab's point of view is not unique to him. Again, I don't agree with it exactly, but at the same time, if you wear Nazi regalia you shouldn't be too surprised if you are attacked by anti-Fascists. For example, if the woman mentioned by John Eden in the latest post here ('Some Comradely Comments on the Slimelight Campaign') - wearing a Totenkopf t-shirt in Stamfod Hill - had been attacked by a concentration camp survivor, you could say that a mistake had taken place, but you wouldn't be in the least bit surprised that it had been made. I mean, if I wanted a quiet life I wouldn't walk around Stamfod Hill wearing SS paraphernalia.

"I suppose I'm just trying to figure out what's going on here, really. So why are you trying to stop a few goths go and see a bunch of crappy bands that nobody even listens to?"

A perfectly reasonable question. I think the answer lies firstly in the lightly disguised fascist agenda of the bands involved, put together with very wide fan base they have. On this website their are people who have defended these elements of neofolk and industrial music from Russia, the US, Austria, Spain and elsewhere. In other words not "just a few goths".

If this gig at the Slimelight goes ahead there will be a few hundred people indulging in a certain kind of fascist aestheticism and metapolitical fascism, be they fascist themselves or not. If they are not fascist I find this hard to understand, just as I find absurd and perplexing that the Russian person commenting above considers that opposing these bands as fascist is in some way assaulting his family and him personally. Surely fetishising second world war German militarism (6 Comm) or promoting a hidden Evolian agenda (Wakeford) is more of an insult, and it's beyond me, given his families history why he would want to attend this concert.

Interesting that an actual threat of serious violence to human beings (and willfully indiscriminate violence at that, with an acknowledged unwillingness to identify the actual 'nazis'!) got past moderation but my comment pointing out that people who are against this campaign might retaliate in some petty and juvenile way (by reporting/flagging the EULA-breakingly "Lovemusic Hateracism" Facebook profile) was censored.

You know that the majority of referencs in that piece is approx 30 years old and/or bollocks (outwith the post-industial culture semiology & context you yourself are more than au courant with), so why rehash it?

Keep up the good work in exposing genuine fascist sympathisers within the music scene but accusing people who you know quite unequivocally are NOT nazis of being so just makes you look an arse and this site increasingly approaching fruit-cake territory.

Groups and individuals in and around Whitehouse have certainly made pro-Nazi statements in their work. Tons of them. The problem William Bennet has is that his gimmick is the idea that, for example, TG only 'played' with extremism, and that such art is feeble because is done in a clever-clever way. His schtick is that he means what he says - which makes it hard from him to distance himself from his past racist and fascist statements, such as his complaints about "unhealthy negroid influences" in culture and his support for fascist genocide, which the Lancaster Unity piece discusses.

I reckon it would be fair, eg., to call Whitehouse a 'pro-Nazi' group because they have supported Nazi genocide and celebrated Nazi atrocities. To me it's a bit academic to say that they did it because they are extreme libertines rather than committed ideological Nazis - because whichever is the case (and I think most of us know that they are the former rather than the latter) it involves 'promoting Nazism', which is the gist of the complaint against them.

I'm not sure it makes much a difference that Whitehouse celebrate killing Jews because they think it might gratify their lust to dominate and kill rather than because they think Jews control both big business and the socialist movement. It makes a difference to how you respond to them (it's very different to, eg., H.E.R.R), for sure, but I don't think it means that, eg., Whitehouse haven't "promoted Nazism".

For the record, I was once a Whitehouse fan, taking their aesthetic to be a way of insulating yourself against recuperation.

So Tony Wakeford is a nazi to quote Stuart Home when talking about Crisis the punk band featuring Douglas P and Tony Wakeford "When to opportunity a rose they'd beat up neo facists". "The revolutionary commitment of Doug and Tony was at odds with the attitude of the rest of the band and their fans" he goes on to say that the band played mainly political benefit gigs and even did a Rock against Racism tour of Norway. Also I seem to remember the only time I have ever seen Wakeford on British TV was to espouse his beliefs in Communism the show even using one of his songs over the end credits. Hardly the actions of the rabid right wing psycho he is being portrayed as here. Still I suppose most of the people posting here will probably start a campaign to get the BBC banned now.

Q - "You know that the majority of references in that piece is approx 30 years old and/or bollocks... so why rehash it?"

A - Yes we do know William Bennett's statements about opposing "Negroid influences" in music, also the White Power compilation and what Peter Sotos said about "the sublime pleasure of child abuse" and "Nazi Triumphs" are all bollocks. Thanks for bringing us up to speed on that one... you prick.

As for saying that material's old, you might have noticed "Mein Kampf" by one Adolf Hitler was published in 1925, does that mean there are no violent Nazis any more and that the influence "Mein Kampf" has on society has been extinguished?

Because the photographs of BNP founder John Tyndall wearing Nazi uniforms were taken in the early 1960s, does that mean that Anti-Fascists should actually BELIEVE the BNP when they now claim they're no longer Fascist? You mug.

As for the person who says "people change", thanks for being so patronisingly obvious, but if Sutcliffe Jugend had really changed, they wouldn't still be using the name Sutlciffe Jugend (Peter Sutcliffe + Hitler Jugend)... you gullible berk.

You neglect to mention that Wakeford went on to join the National Front and set up nazi bands Death in June and Above the Ruins - AFTER Crisis. And that he released a compilation LAST YEAR (With Friends Like These) on his Tursa label with with the Kaparte label which included contributions from Richard Moult and Rose E Rovine and others.

In case you aren't aware Moult was a member of the Nazi/occult cult Order of the Nine Angles and contributed a forward to a recent biography of David Myatt, the National Socialist and wierdo occultist. Rose E Rovine are an Italian fascist band who released a split single with outright nazi band Von Thronstahl. Not exactly the twenty year separation from fascists that he claimed to have made back in 2007 in his infamous statement about breaking with his fascist past.

Your comment that "most of the people posting here will probably start a campaign to get the BBC banned now" is just pathetic, as are all the other comments you make. If you have a serious point to make you had better try again.

the sol show hasn't even happened yet and you're already pointing fingers at a new target: writer peter sotos.

when will you finally learn to distinguish art from real life?music and fiction are art forms.

i case you don't agree and take everything at face value, let's please hear your ideas about the next BOYCOTT STEWART HOME campaign.

here's some excerpt from his deeply misogynist writings:

""Then she dropped her jeans and got me to lick out her funky twat. It tasted a hell of a lot better than the pre-packaged in-flight meal I’d just eaten. The girl sat down on the toilet bowl and I licked her clit while she took a shit. She stood up again and said I could fuck her up the arse. We didn’t need a lubricant, her lunch hadn’t agreed with her and she’d just had a very loose crap. The computer scientist’s sphincter was well stretched and I didn’t have any problems getting my cock up there." (Cunt, p.97)"

"Strelnikov: " If they are not fascist I find this hard to understand,"

Then perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to judge things you admittedly don't understand?"

Those were my words not Strelnikovs. Read what is in the thread properly. Strelnikov makes his position very clear in all his comments.

My point was simply that I don't understand what the attraction of metafascist symbolism and aesthetics is to people who aren't fascist. (Surely there can be no pleasure to be had from any of the music).

How about making a comment that actually contributes to the debate. Maybe you could start by explaining the attraction to me. Because if it isn't political then what is it? Grown-ups playing a perverse form of Action Man? Fun with the dressing up box? The thing is I find it hard to believe any adult could behave in such a pathetic and childish way. Aren't you embarrassed?

Sorry, that I missed who the poster was, Jean-Louis. It was a wee bit early in the morning here.

As for explaining it to you... I don't know why I should bother, as you show no interest in actually listen if I did. Why else would you make attributions such as this?"Grown-ups playing a perverse form of Action Man? Fun with the dressing up box? The thing is I find it hard to believe any adult could behave in such a pathetic and childish way. Aren't you embarrassed? "

You've obviously made your mind up, and nothing anyone say to you can change it. If you don't like the music, or enjoy whatever aesthetic you believe the music projects, then don't listen to it.

Those of us who enjoy the music should be free to, without being labeled fascist or nazis, or threatened with violence which some so-called anti-fascist feel compelled to do.

Isn't that pretty simple? Then you can go on, not understanding, and label whatever you don't understand as fascist and metapolitical or whatnot, just because you've read it on some blogpost.

when will you finally learn to distinguish art from real life?music and fiction are art forms.

Two problems with this.

First, art and music do interact with real life in all sorts of ways, sometimes in a manner in which the artist does not expect. I do not think this is an argument for censorship or anything, but it is worth discussing how ideas of this type interact with society at large. This is what continually annoys me about this whole issue. Many neofolk fans are so goddamned sensitive that even discussing the issue upsets them.

You don't have to be campaigning against these acts, nor do you have to be arguing against them. Just bringing the subject up seems to set off a lot of bleating and whining among neofolk/martial industrial fanboys. Personally, I want to see a good, in depth discussion of the issues raised by this blog, not only because I think they are important, but the topics are interesting from a purely sociological, psychological, etc. perspective. But many neofolk fans seem too sensitive to any criticism to handle even a neutral, detached, academic dialogue on these matters.

Second, yes, art and music are not 'real life' or whatever. They don't always represent the views of the artist, nor is the artist explicitly promoting anything in particular with a work. But this is not always the case. Is Sotos promoting a certain view or specific actions with his work? I don't really know. But it does seem worth discussing, at the very least. The same applied to DIJ, Wakeford, Blutarsch, and the rest of the characters this blog is usually concerned with.

I part ways with this blog on the issue of canceling the gig. At least, for the moment. I may support that position as more information becomes available, or if a more compelling argument is made. However, even if I don't support outright censorship, I think that having this conversation is inherently good in and of itself. Exploring a difficult issue in great detail is never bad, even if the issue is somewhat minor compared to other matters.

Another rather important fact regarding Stotos which certain contributors appear to overlook as the past 30 years has passed them by is that since the days of his art-student fanzine production, Sotos's writings have concentrated solely on two subjects - the post-AIDS homosexual underground of glory-holes, cruising and annonomous sex and the salacious media spectacles of child abuse/abduction/murder. This is why his books are openly sold in the gay literature sections of Waterstones, Amazon etc and are critically acclaimed by everyone from Dennis Cooper and Gaspar Noe to Lydia Lunch and Catherine Breillat.But, hey! If you want to censor gay underground literature keep up the good work.

First, is Sotos gay? If he were, that would be intriguing. Maybe not relevant, but it could cast a somewhat new light on him. I suppose my interest in that is more personal, being non-hetero myself.

Second, yeah, perhaps his books are sold there. But that in itself means little. What is his intent? What is he trying to say? You seem familiar with Sotos and his work, so I would like to hear your opinion.

Further...Noe, Cooper, et. all may indeed praise his work. But that in itself doesn't mean much. Is it possible they are simply misunderstanding what he does? Perhaps reading some sort of meaning in to his writings where there really is none?

I would like to state my thoughts; what Sotos does, based on my admittedly limited knowledge of his material, seems like the ravings of someone who has a lurid, tabloid style interest in these matters. He writes about this stuff because he likes it on a rather simple level. I don't mean simple as an insult, but simple as in...he simply likes it, with no real intellectual or artist motive behind his interest in it or his desire to promote it.

Is there a convincing argument that there is some sort of deeper meaning behind what this guy does? Don't just say 'art is different from real life' or anything along those lines. Can anyone give a detailed argument that Sotos is doing more than just writing sensationalistic material, and if so, what are his actual reasons for doing so?

Just because speech does not have a deeper, more intellectual meaning behind it does not mean it should be censored. I'm not saying that what he does should be censored just because it lacks and depth or intellectual foundation. I just want to know what people think what he does has any intellectual or artistic foundation at all.

But, hey! If you want to censor gay underground literature keep up the good work.

This somewhat emotive statement is akin to saying that criticism of DIJ is an attempt to censor gay music, even though the reason DIJ is criticized has NOTHING to do with Doug's sexuality.

(My comment about there being no pleasure to be had from the music was facetious, people derive pleasure from all sorts of music and I apologise for that. Frustration got the better of me.)

So to clarify why I object to this upcoming concert and the work of the musicians discussed in this blog in a more measured way:

I assure you I keep an open mind on these things as I have friends who have been fans in the past of some of these bands (Death in June, Non, Current 93 etc.) but I think all of them have since grown up and now consider it as a passing adolescent phase. They all came through the punk scene and were attracted by the shock value of transgression and taboo breaking. The 80s was a grim time politically and the rise of the far-right was enough to make them realise that you play around with these at your peril, and potentially do a lot of harm in doing so.

Some of those friends have also known certain of the well-known musicians involved and have stories of them expressing hardcore racist and fascist attitudes long after claiming in public to that they don't hold these views.

Doug Pierce, Tony Wakeford, Patrick Leagas, Boyd Rice and others are still hawking the same old crap around, albeit in a more disguised way, and are working with artists who are clearly fascist, and even releasing them on their own labels in some case. They profit from this aura of transgression and benefit from selling it to a young and gullible new audience, most of who never experienced the vicious political climate that existed when these musicians started down the road of promoting outright fascist politics. Those politics are sadly returning today. None of the artists have come out against fascism, but simply chosen to say that, for example they "very much regret" having been involved in being a member of the National Front. This is very different from coming out against fascism, especially when they still hang out, promote, play concerts with and release music by people who are still involved in promoting fascism, despite stating "I have no connection with, sympathy for, or interest in those ideas nor have I had for around 20 years" as Wakeford did four years ago. As this is obviously untrue he is now being attacked for this dishonesty, as he deserves.

So, no I don't believe that the fans of these bands are necessarily fascist at all. I simply think that they are being conned by their heroes, who are disingenuous at best, and liars in the worst cases. I am only looking at the facts and making a judgement on that basis.

One last point. On transgression in art. I absolutely do not support censorship. I admire plenty of artists who use a transgressive approach to make beautiful, ugly, even violent art and do so with no sinister agenda but to illuminate something dark in human nature or simply nature itself; the Actionist artist Herman Nitsch for example or performance artist Franko B. However I also believe it is entirely reasonable for people to object to their art and demonstrate against it if they believe it to be in some way damaging to society. I believe in their own small way these neofolk and industrial musicians ARE promoting fascism, directly or indirectly, and I oppose that for obvious historical reasons.

What would be enough for you then? At what point would Tony Wakeford cease to be a fascist in your opinion? When he plays gigs at anti-racist festivals? He has done this, but that keeps being ignored by those who wish to slander him, or they claim it's some sort of metapolitical tactic to fool everyone. At which point trying to argue against the accusation becomes completely impossible. Any counter-argument made is just further proof of how insidious the artist is in disguising his true nature.

Arguing that artists are fascists because they have worked or work with other people who you also argue are fascists, is not really the way to go about this, either. That's just guilt by association, and it really doesn't hold water. I can use the same to prove that Wakeford is a Trotskyist, and hence everyone he has worked with is a part of a conspiracy of Trotskyist entryism. It's just a matter of being selective about your "facts".

"When he plays gigs at anti-racist festivals? He has done this, but that keeps being ignored"

can someone provide details of this? I've heard it several times and seen the poster for a gig where Sol are playing at a gig sponsored by 'Love Music Hate Fascism', etc. But I want to know when and where the gigs were, and what the organisations were that they played for.

Concerning Sotos and homosexuality: "Homos are a bit more attractive than women when they're on top but disgusting when they're on bottom. That sort of submissiveness stinks of femaleness. Also, I dislike phony sadism such as that practiced by leatherboys, but I appreciate their promiscuity."Taken from an interview that was publsihed in "Appocalypse Culture".

I am not interested in who is really, in their heart, a fascist. The argument as far as I am concerned is about the 'promotion of fascism and racism'. If is possible to oppose the promotion of fascism, for example, without having to believe that the promoter is a proven fascist (membership of a fascist party? writing for a fascist journal? providing a platform for other fascists?)

It seems typical of the soppy individualism of teenage music fans, where everything is about your 'identity', to obsess about 'who you really are'. But for the purposes of anti-fascism, etc., it's what you do that counts.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck - well, it may not be a duck, but it can still get the fuck off my lawn and go and shit somewhere else.

Another thing. Much has been made about Bennett, SJ, etc., backing off from their more openly pro-Nazi statements, made many years ago.

It is worth considering why they did this. My theory is that they thought it was OK then, in the early 80s, as the fascist National Front and British Movement were on the rise. But since the NF, BM, etc., were beaten back by anti-fascists and anti-racists it has become unacceptable in society at large (here in the UK I mean) to actively celebrate fascism. Hence they realised that they had gone too far and really were playing with fire if they carried on in that vein, so they backtracked. But if the situation were to degenerate again I wouldn't be at all surprised to see them starting singing the same old hymns all over again - not because I think either group are actually fascist, but because it would mean that the 'boundary between what is and is not ultimately offensive' would have shifted again - and it's that margin that, eg., Whitehouse exploit.

Perhaps I'm being unfair to Bennett and all, and they have offered better reasons for their about-face. But if so, I haven't seen them - any interviews I've seen with Bennett he has been talking complete nonsense, contradicting himself, avoiding the subject, etc.

Well, I tied to explain my reasons for opposing those who promote fascism and give my reasons. You can check every one of the statements I made. The information is out there and has been discussed again and again on this blog. I will discuss any objection you have in detail if you like. But I realise now that there is no way you want to do that.

"You've obviously made your mind up, and nothing anyone say to you can change it." I wonder who said that. As it happens I have changed my mind on a couple of aspects of the discussions on this blog since I have been reading and commenting on it. I doubt whether you have.

God you're a tedious bore. Come back to me when you actually want an adult discussion.

Yes, Sotos is gay. You probably give me too much credit as i'm certainly no expert on his oeuvre. To be honest, I find most of his work at best repetitive, at worst, boring as fuck as I have no familiarity with the glory-hole, cruising and 'bug chasing' homosexual subterranea his books depict, so once the vicarious interest wears off it's like reading science fiction.

His schtick is that he writes to produce his own pornography and that his first person accounts or bath-house encounters and expositions of child abuse/murder are really what people want to read when they read salacious tabloid articles on the same subjects and exposures of moral hypocricy. This is invariably belied by the unintentionally humanist approaches he takes to such media as the Annabel Chong documentary in his book 'Confort & Critique'.

Really, he isn't all that interesting or dangerous, and isn't really doing anything much different to what Genet, Burroughs or Giorno did long before.

You can read an interview with him from The Prague Literary Review here which covers most of your points: http://www.thefanzine.com/articles/features/39/interview_with_peter_sotos/4

And then make up your mind as to whether he's really worth the hue and cry you are trying to generate.

is it the fact that it is 'literature', that Sotos is gay, or that the product is considered 'underground' (countercultural? not to everyone's taste?) that makes you think the normal rules (whatever they are) shouldn't apply? I don't see why 'gay underground literature' should be treated differently to anything else.

The blog said: Does anyone seriously believe that, while there may be fascists in your workplace or your housing estate, and while fascists can get elected to local councils and even to parliament, it is inconceivable that they might also go to concerts or play in bands?-----------I (Mykel Board) answer: This sounds amazingly like American anti-Communist rhetoric of the 50s-70s and current "anti-terrorist" rhetoric. You never know who is one of them... watch out, they're hiding under the bed!

Most of the counter-arguments have missed the point. That is, if you want a free society, you have to tolerate points of view different from yours. You don't have to like them, but you have to permit them. Banning free expression, (especially free expression by those who have no other outlet) either by direct action or pressure is a kind of totalitarianism. It gives implicit permission for others to take action to ban YOUR free expression. And believe me, they've got bigger guns than you have.

Mykel...this sort of comment is getting a little tiresome. The authors of this blog and the supporters who post comments have made it clear, again and again, that they are not arguing for censoring 'fascist' expression or using the state or criminalize fascist views.

Most of the people who support the work of this blog are members of these various music scenes and they simply want to have a discussion about these issues. The hysterical view that your post expresses does no service to that.

Whether they intend to or not, the posters who keep on making these comments are muddying the conversation by ascribing views to the anti-fascists that they generally do not hold. So instead we go off on tangents in which we have to argue this same point over and over.

Do you think these groups are fascists? If not, then give a decent argument as to why. If you think it simply does not matter, then again, make the argument for that position.

In any case, isn't it time this discussion moved past the entire 'anti fascists are just as bad as fascists' stage?

In a free society everyone is free express their opposition to a political position they disagree with. Especially when that political position is one that would restrict everyone's right to free speech.

This is descending into a dishonest argument about banning and censorship when the real interest lies in some kind of transparency and intellectual honesty... if these people are fascists, why the fuck are they so ashamed of it... if they aren't why don't they face up to the reality of their 'transgressive' behavior?

I'm astonished that the only person who has the balls to admit he's a fascist is the Onanistic Imperium dude, the rest of them shimmy behind cute little lines about liking the uniforms, investigating taboos and a version of "I hate you mom and dad, you don't understand me so I can't be bothered to explain myself".

I can't see these dilletantes having any staying power when their beloved Storm of Steel comes.

@Jean-Louis:"God you're a tedious bore. Come back to me when you actually want an adult discussion."How very mature of you. That way you don't have to discuss anything.

@Strelnikov:"But I want to know when and where the gigs were, and what the organisations were that they played for."Sure, I can help you with some information about that. Send me an e-mail, and I'll tell you a story or two.

"I am not interested in who is really, in their heart, a fascist. The argument as far as I am concerned is about the 'promotion of fascism and racism'."But what and who you consider promoting fascism seems a bit arbitrary. It basically boils down to that you don't like Tony Wakeford and the people he's worked with. There's not really much substance to it.

It is absolutely typical of this blog that you have nothing to say about the quote that a previous post put up from Stewart Home's "novel" CUNT!! So do you not think that it is mysoginist or is it character play on Stewart's part. Is he writing from the point of view of a mysoginist wanker who treats women like pieces of sexual meat or is there something more sinister behind the writing of this writer. Is he in fact a hater, user and abuser of women? I'm sure he isn't but you get my point Strelly there are some evasions going on by the pro-WMTN's bloggers here because Home is anti-fascist so you let him get away with any criticism of his lit-er-at-man-ure?

I'm sure he isn't but you get my point Strelly there are some evasions going on by the pro-WMTN's bloggers here because Home is anti-fascist so you let him get away with any criticism of his lit-er-at-man-ure?

There are no evasions. No one said anything about it because Stewart Home is largely immaterial to this entire debate. Wakeford, DIJ, etc. are still dubious no matter what Stewart Home does or does not do.

JUST ANOTHER COMMENT ASKED: Do you think these groups are fascists? If not, then give a decent argument as to why. If you think it simply does not matter, then again, make the argument for that position.

I reply: I don't care if they're fascists. I don't even think most of them (or people in general) know what fascism is: The basic idea of state-supported capitalism with extreme nationalism and authoritarian control of personal freedom. That's the narrow definition. A more recent definition is "anybody we don't like."

If you want to criticize politics, then criticize ideas for their value as ideas. Not because of symbols, dress or musical style. It's too easy to paste a label on something, then hate it because of the label.

John Cage once called Glen Branca's music "fascist." That's ridiculous. Music cannot be fascist. Song lyrics might be fascist, but except for some tunes in Caberet, I don't think I've heard any.

I don't even think most of them (or people in general) know what fascism is: The basic idea of state-supported capitalism with extreme nationalism and authoritarian control of personal freedom. That's the narrow definition. A more recent definition is "anybody we don't like."

I think the definition of fascism that this blog is working on is pretty clear. It has been covered multiple times. I would concur that many of them, Boyd Rice in particular, are very ignorant about what fascism is, particularly in regards to the definition you put forth. However, that does not mean their positions are any less dubious or ridiculous.

If you want to criticize politics, then criticize ideas for their value as ideas. Not because of symbols, dress or musical style. It's too easy to paste a label on something, then hate it because of the label.

Well, there is much to criticize in these notions of anti-modernity, of 'eurocentrism', social drawinism, and other backwards pseudo scientific views commonly held by these groups. These things have been criticized here and elsewhere, so it is not as if we are just basing everything on symbols.

There has also been much criticism of very dubious associations, such as Wakefords mingling with NF members, and worst of all, Moynihans association with the disgusting James Mason.

Peter Sotos has now withdrawn from the Slimelight bill. Here's his statement: "The only reason that I wanted to be involved with this show was that I like SJ and Gaya very much. I’d rather not put anyone in the position of having to defend me or ideas that are, to me at least, more complex and lifelong than the current forum seems to allow. "

I've read his work since he started seriously publishing mid-90s and in so many ways he is such a difficult writer to defend - the newer writing is far removed from the style of Pure but it's still relentlessly disgusting and bleak. Paedophiles hate him, as he's not talking about age of consent laws or 'loving intergenerational relationships' - he talks about cruelty and abuse with terrible consequences. The picture he paints of his own homosexuality isn't done with 'pride' or any kind of sex-positive celebration - he descibes squalid and ugly anonymous encounters between damaged men. Victims of crimes hate him because, just like the newspapers, he exploits them by using their real names prominently in books. The liberal literary intelligentsia and art scene hate him for pushing the aesthetics of people like Genet and Francis Bacon into an area that drips into uneducated real-life violence. His books still feature casual racism which he refuses to self-censor, mixed with gleeful depictions of cruelty to animals.

I read him, with some regrets, as he is a unique stylist and one of very few writers willing to cast an eye on the brutal power dynamics that lie behind everyday human interactions. Andrea Dworkin was another, and like Sotos she is frequently discussed by peoplw who haven't actually read her. [insert joke about 'they both ate all the pies' here]

I direct you to the Discogs page for the 7" single 'Streetcleaner' by Marco Deplano aka Wertham. The lyrics of all three songs are reproduced in the 'More Images' section – and this is merely ONE release among hundreds which could be cited.

I've just read the lyrics to all the songs on that Wertham 7" and can't see why you made the comment above. NB: in case you were hoping noone would bother to check your infallible word, here is the link: http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=1652876

Please correct me if my sight is failing me but I really can't see ANYTHING racist or fascist in them. Just fairly unispiring misanthropic tosh but no different to a hell of a lot of (even fairly mainstream) acts come out with these days, Muggeridge.

However, as one of the numbers is a cover by an American straight-edge act called Slapshot they DO bring up on interesting area which hasn't yet been approaced by this site. Namely, the 'straight edge' and/or 'hardlne hardcore' scenes (primarily American, but now well established in Europe and throughout the world). THIS is where you will find the most extreme and offensive right-wing and reactionary sentiments (anti race mixing, abortion, homosexuality etc. coupled with a virulently misanthropic deep ecology) being quite brazenly extolled outside the white power/B&H hate-rock scene. Google such charmers as Vegan Reich, Pure Blood should you have an empty stomach.

The interview does cast him in a slightly different light, but not as much as I expected. At least not based on the comments of the individual who posted it.

Is Sotos doing something truly significant, is he really making a comment on anything in particular? Or is he just writing this stuff for purely sensationalistic motives?

I still think it is likely that the reason he is so difficult to defend on 'artistic' grounds is that there really is no signal there. It is all noise, if you will. All the higher motives and social important of his work, so often it comes across as his fans simply projection their own perceptions on to his material, seeing patterns where none exist.

Even Sotos himself, in that interview, mentioned the 'mice who think I am doing something socially significant.' or some remark along those lines. I don't know exactly how to take that. But one obvious interpretation is that he is confirming that all of this talk about him examining power relationships or human nature, etc. has no basis in his actual writing.

He is indeed problematic. Maybe you are right, and the situation is not so clear cut, but I remain unconvinced. Even if he really is trying to examine aspects of society with some noble intent, I think he does so in a manner that is very questionable. At best, he exhibits incredibly poor judgment.

I have met, been tackled by, and was force fed tofu by members of Vegan Reich. And we all laughed through the entire ordeal. That was at an anarchist convention in Toronto more than 15 years ago. Unless the personnel or ideology of the band has changed a whole lot in that time, they are a great put-on, satire, like Crucial Youth. Sorry if you can't see the parody in much of this "extreme" behavior. But anarchists are not known for their sense of humor.

I reply: That's funny because the discussion mentions ME. But the only FASCIST mention is: "The approach has many fascistic overtones: the rule of the mob will brook no deviation or dissent, and will respond immediately by shouting down, by intimidation, or by violence... A good example would be the 'Straight Edge' bands who put forward extremely conservative statements which mirrored the conservative mainstream of American society: their macho thuggish behaviour was just another manifestation of the culture which had trained them since birth..."

The speaker is right that Mainstream America is a conservative/totalitarian culture. But it's a little broad brush to call American supporters... by the fact that they're supporters, "fascist." It is also ironic, because the previous speaker implied Vegan Reich were fascist because they converted to Islam!! Right now, there is nothing more UNAMERICAN than converting to Islam.

I don't know if the term 'fascist' applies to Vegan Reich, since fascist does have some specific connotations. But totalitarian/authoritarian certainly does. Maybe that puts them slightly beyond the scope of this blog, but Strel and the other authors would have to weigh in on that topic. I'm not involved with the operation of this blog.

I've written about Vegan Reich and Crucial Youth before. It obviously wasn't written for this site or context but it may still be useful:

http://www.uncarved.org/blog/2005/02/punk-comics-3/

It was very clear to me that Crucial Youth were a parody band, but this is the first I have heard about Vegan Reich being one. Perhaps that's because it wasn't a very good parody. Didn't they go on to inspire other bands?

Re. the "Peter Sotos is gay" comment - I promised myself to keep right out of the Sotos business, but on this one specific point, I will say this - having (for my considerable sins) read his work, his take on the "gay thing" is degrading, bigoted, incredlby narrow-minded, filled wiith violent disgust and contains zero empathy for gays at all. To him, gays are either grovelling "bottoms" or "heroic" rapists and abusers of children. I dunno about the rest of you, but his so-called understanding of homosexuality would even embarrass Troy Southgate (hello Troy!).

Sotos a gay? He can jog right on with that one. 17 Jun 2011 22:24:00"

Yes, his take on his own homosexual experiences is made up of unpleasant and sleazy encounters with damaged men. These things happen, I've done shit like that myself when incapacitated through drink and felt disgusted with myself and the world the next day. Not all gay experience is some fluffy 'Queer as Folk' style positive celebration.

Why the hell would I oblige some punk who has the nerve to call me a fraud? You don't have a clue who I am.

I've asked Strelnikov to contact me, so that I can share some enlightening information with him. He hasn't contacted me, and hasn't responded to the offer. Like you, I guess he isn't interested.

For your information;

Tony Wakeford played the anti-racist "Fantasifestivalen", a youth festival in Norway, outside Stavanger in 2007. He also played Cafè Grössenwahn in Oslo in 2010, which has a strictly enforced no-nazi, policy.

Perhaps it is not all 'fluffy'. Still, even when that is taken in to consideration, I fail to see where Sotos' work offers any particular insight on this matter. Is it in his illumination of the seedier side of gay life? Possibly, but if so, then he is redundant at best. It's not like that ground has never been covered before.

@ artfag — Yes, indeed — "Sacha C" is one of the most tiresome trolls on this blog, on the bench eagerly awaiting anyone to say anything that remotely clashes with what little Sasha has read on the internet; then he/she/it comes scuttling on and does his/her/its pathetic little dance. Sacha doesn't actually know anything about what Sacha sounds off about — this is what offends about some of the "anti" comments on this site.Pathetic little shite.

@Mad Mullah: "I've asked Strelnikov to contact me, so that I can share some enlightening information with him. He hasn't contacted me, and hasn't responded to the offer"

I did try but the link from your name doesn't contain any email address through which I could contact you. At least I couldn't see one. You can mail me at the address in the 'Contact' page of the blog.

I can find no mention of anti-racism in relation to the 2007 Fantasi Festivalen anywhere.

I never claimed that Wakeford is a nazi. I happen to think he has sympathy with a fascist/Evolian worldview and hangs out in circles with people who have similar beliefs, but that is not the same as being a nazi. A fascist perhaps, but not a nazi.

On the subject of Cafe Grossenwahn they do have a disclaimer it is true, and in my opinion that should have prevented Wakeford playing there, but anyway they had their arses covered with a useful statement they can point to if their motive for putting on some dodgy old fascist like Wakeford is questioned. It is telling that they feel the need for a disclaimer at all. They obviously think there is a serious problem with "extreme right-wing people" in neofolk circles:

"The Norwegian Society of Megalomania (Cafe Grossenwahn) is open to members regardless of race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. But because we live in the world we live in, we have to distance ourselves from extreme right-wing people who are trying to give neofolk and megalomania a bad name. If you are one of these people, you are neither wanted as a member of the Society or as a guest at Café Grössenwahn."

Well, ex-neofolk fan, I wrote that disclaimer and the reason it was necessary is partly due to people like you. Who seem to insist that Tony Wakeford for the last decades has assembled a band consisting of Jews, lesbians and socialists and written songs with no fascist content and use no fascist symbols or imagery just to try to get people to buy his back stock of Above the Ruins records where his real agenda is revealed. Or something to that effect.

If I remember correctly, researchers have estimated that it takes the Jehovah’s Witnesses about 3000 working hours to gain a convert; Tony Wakeford has perhaps come up with an even less efficient plan at converting people to his supposed cause.

Another reason why the disclaimer is necessary is the groups and individuals who are REAL fascists (or identitarians or national anarchists or whatever) to pursue a “metapolitical” strategy within the neofolk sphere. The people who run Café Grössenwahn are all over the place politically and religiously, as are our guests, but we have no desire to be part of anybody’s political agenda. Hence the disclaimer.

This blog could have been a place to discuss this problem, if it hadn’t been for its insistence on living in (at best) in the past or (at worst) in the land of pure fantasy.

Didrik. May I ask, who do you consider the real fascists, exactly? You do not seem to think Wakeford is a fascist, that much you make clear. What about Boyd Rice? Moynihan? Southgate? If there are individuals who qualify that have not been mentioned on this blog, then it would be quite agreeable if you would discuss them. I am curious.

John Eden said...: I've written about Vegan Reich and Crucial Youth before. It obviously wasn't written for this site or context but it may still be useful:

http://www.uncarved.org/blog/2005/02/punk-comics-3/

It was very clear to me that Crucial Youth were a parody band, but this is the first I have heard about Vegan Reich being one. Perhaps that's because it wasn't a very good parody. Didn't they go on to inspire other bands?

============I reply: Are you kidding? Read what you wrote: Vegan Jihad?? "Sean Penn (er, no, not that one) changed his name to Shahid ‘Ali Muttaqi on conversion to Islam." Come on... are you kidding? That's hilarious! What better way to be an instigator and get the goat of Mr and Mrs All American than to become a Muslim, especially in 2003!!

Did you look at the sign you copied. "RAMADAN 2003: Day of Resurrection?"

First: Ramadan is not a day, it's a month.Second: Resurrection is a purely Christian concept, it has nothing to do with Islam... There is NO resurrection in Islam.

@Strelnikov: "I occasionally block comments if they are racist, etc., but I don't block comments simply because I disagree with them."

Regarding statements that promote indiscriminate (or dare I say any) violence as a means to deal with either real or perceived ideological conflict, though, this logic is rather faulty...after all, isn't the problem with racism that--beyond existing as opinion--it puts certain groups of people at risk of harm on an ideological basis?

If Vegan Reich are a 'parody' band the parody appears to have gone over the heads of the people I know who have met, recorded with and played concerts with them. All of whom say whilst they initially believed them to be a 'wind-up' they are in fact deadly serious. In particular about their anti-abortion/anti-homosexuality beliefs. If you claim Vegan Reich are a 'parody' quid pro quo the entire 'hardline' movement is a parody. It's like suggesting No Remorse were a 'parody' of the Blood & Honour haterock scene. Ridiculous.

I reply: Of course! Look at the website address: "Muslims for Jesus." Clearly a parody of "Jews for Jesus."

I know some things are so strange that they tread the line between weird real-life fact and parody. That's the line that good parody treads. You wonder... is this real? I have friends in Hungary who actually thought the DKs wanted to KILL THE POOR. (For me, that's pretty far from the line.)

If this Muslim stuff is not parody, then its funny on its own, and I apologize for my mistake. But it's certainly not fascist!! I don't know how to find out, though, because a good parodyist will always stay in character. Look at Stephen Colbert in the U.S.

"I can find no mention of anti-racism in relation to the 2007 Fantasi Festivalen anywhere."

You find a lot of English material on the festival at all?

Fantasifestivalen declared itself a racism free zone in 2006, so it was already established already. It's a system where you brand your business or organization with a clear intent of fighting racism and discrimination.

"I never claimed that Wakeford is a nazi. I happen to think he has sympathy with a fascist/Evolian worldview and hangs out in circles with people who have similar beliefs, but that is not the same as being a nazi. A fascist perhaps, but not a nazi. "

So he's perhaps a fascist? Fascism is a pretty nasty accusation, you should probably be sure before you start branding people with that.

As for Grössenwahn. Didrik answered that neatly. I can only add that the people involved have strong feelings about racism and fascism, and they are not fuzzy feelings.

@Mad Mullah: I like the part of the Grössenwahn declaration that says of 'extreme right-wing people' "If you are one of these people, you are neither wanted as a member of the Society or as a guest at Café Grössenwahn.", but can I ask how this is enforced? My question is, if I try to book a gig to play there, is it enough that I declare that I am not right-wing, or do the people who run the club decide that?

I guess, having written a book with the fascist Michael Moynihan you have to cover your back with disclaimers. You really are a joke, and I don't quite understand quite how you have got away with calling yourself "Norway's biggest anti-fascist" and other such shit for so long when it is obvious that your political sympathies are the opposite. You wouldn't have the guts to admit what a fucking fascist cunt you are. Of all the arseholes who have posted here defending various nazi and fascist scum you are the most depicable. Now fuck off.

It's astonishing how you just sit there and make things up. I have NEVER called myself "Norway's biggest anti-fascist", that was something a right-wing extremist slapped on to me (the neo-Nazi group Vigrid have called me similar things online). And yes, it would be a joke, as I'm hardly much of an activist of any sort. But not halfway as big a joke as me being a fascist.

I wish you people hiding behind the anonymity of the Internet would at least make your minds up. Am I, as you claim, a "fascist c**t", or am I, as members of the far-right scene in Scandinavia claims in articles linked here earlier, a "nazi-hunter?" Logic dictates that it’s hard to be both at the same time.

But yes, I do plan to "fuck off" and leave you people to your little Internet sandbox.

@Didrik: "I do plan to "fuck off" and leave you people to your little Internet sandbox."

Personally I wouldn't call you either a "fascist c*nt" or "nazi hunter" - I have you down more as a soppy fanboy and libertarian poseur - but whatever you 'really' are, anyone such as you who helps legitimise Michael Moynihan by collaborating with him in writing a book deserves large measures of contempt. If you have any real anti-fascist credentials in your homeland then you are using them to legitimise one the major propagandists for fascism that exists in this 'scene'. May I ask you, since James Mason's Siege was published by Moynihan in 1992, and since your book with him was published in 1998 (as far as I can gather online), that means you would have known that he was promoting (Mason celebrates the random murder of Jews, mixed-race couples, socialists, etc.) even while you worked with him -- can I ask, do you think Moynihan's group Blood Axis should be allowed to play the Grössenwahn club? Would you consider them a pro-fascist group? If so, why write books with their leader? And, if not, your radar is so fucked as to make your opinions about anything else functionally useless imo.

In short, your defence of Sol Invictus, Tony Wakeford, Andrew King, etc., might have a little more credibility if you didn't have a track record of collaborating with Moynihan.

I did find a few references to the Fantasifestivalen in English, but as I say nothing referring to anti-fascism or anti-racism so it doesn't seem to figure very high in their priorities. Maybe you could post something that verifies what you say.

* "I never claimed that Wakeford is a nazi. I happen to think he has sympathy with a fascist/Evolian worldview and hangs out in circles with people who have similar beliefs, but that is not the same as being a nazi. A fascist perhaps, but not a nazi. "

So he's perhaps a fascist? Fascism is a pretty nasty accusation, you should probably be sure before you start branding people with that."

As I'm sure you are aware Wakeford was a member of the National Front in the mid-eighties (not the seventies as that moron Leagas keeps saying in the press) and continued to sell his blatantly fascist Above the Ruins ep until 2007. He only stopped at that point because that was when he made his feeble statement about having nothing to do with fascists anymore. And given the company he still keeps today that statement looks even more dishonest than it did at the time. Don't forget he included tracks by Richard Moult and Rose E Rovine on the "With Friends Like These" compilation released on his record label in partnership with Kaparte. It's boring to have to keep providing fools like you with the facts but there they are.

As for Soderlind the man is a fraud and a fascist collaborator so I really have no truck with his nauseating brand of bullshit.

As you might possible imagine. I don't care for your continuous use of insulting characteristics of myself or my friend Didrik. I've had my fill of you, and don't feel very much inclined to continue debating this issue who seems incapable of adressing his opponents without resorting to calling them fools or frauds.

When first contacted by the Tribune, Slimelight owner May Uan Mak claimed the bands had severed all fascist connections. “I would not allow this to go ahead if there were any fascist connections,” he said.

But later he said: “Ok, I am not comfortable with the bands, that’s me being honest. These bands do have clear fascist connections, I’ll admit that. It would be impossible for me to deny that, but the audiences who come to see them are not necessarily bad.

“The audience are not racists, so it’s worth having them play for the audience. Most of the people who see them aren’t racist anyway. You might get your odd skinhead, but we’re not stuck in the 80s any more when there were loads of skinheads coming to these gigs.

“Art can be fascist too. The fascist language can be just as powerful as any other language in the world.”

If the Tribune hack is not a complete arse he'll have notes/recordings of the interview, which would clear things up. As a journalist I can tell you you have to really be stupid not to have evidence for your story and any editor will have asked to see that before going to print so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for Mak May Uan to take him to task. Hope he does though.

I have attended about a dozen Sol Invictus performances in the last decade, at concerts and festivals throughout Europe. Never were they surrounded by this much political discussion.

At none of these concerts did I witness any nazi/fascist imagery on stage. No flags, no uniforms, no films, no speeches. The songs that were played did not contain overtly political propaganda (or my English wasn't good enough to grasp it).

Personally I am only interested in the band because I like their music, and because they always had good musicians in their line-up. Call it naive, but I'm not interested in mr. Wakeford's world view or what he does in his spare time.

My own political preference has always been (moderate) left-wing. Never have I heard any music powerful enough to change my views or indoctrinate me. I agree that some bands are distasteful in their use of controversial imagery, but for me Sol Invictus does not belong to this category.

I thought that when my friend told me that Slimes was booking a Nazi band that she meant some Skrewdriver tribute or some crap..... When I see it is Sol Invictus, and that people are still going round calling Whitehouse and Death in June "nazi bands" it just makes me sad. I'm transgender, autistic, have many ethnic friends, etc and I listen to Whitehouse, Death in June, Sutcliffe Jugend, Genocide Organ, etc.... And so do a lot of my foreign, non-white friends. It's music/art for christ sake, maybe these fools have stupid political views but who says I can't still enjoy the music? I mean these guys aren't playing songs called "I Hate Coons" or some shit - sure there are some fascist pigs out there but a lot of this post-industrial/neo-folk music is gravely misunderstood and has been since the 80s... I doubt 90% of the people going ape shit over this whole drama have ever actually listened to the "nazi bands" they are slagging off and as a result know nothing of how tired and old this issue is.....

Tony Wakeford was asked to leave Death in June for being an NF member, how does that make them a Nazi band? He's also repeatedly expressed intense regret over previous NF associations.... Members of sol Invictus have been in the past hispanic people, gay people, mentally "disabled" people...... And I say all this as a person who is bored senseless by Sol Invictus' music. But I love Death in June, and that isn't even really the point, these people should be allowed to play their music damnit!

A lot of these stupid accusations arise out of the populace's inability to distinguish "Nazism" from Occult/Odinist type practices, which I will admit in certain circles do hold interpretably racist views, but not to such an extent by any means that it could be called Nazism. It's often closer to a silly pagan "goth" type thing... I mean I know friends who have seen Sol Invictus live and they would have mentioned the presence of swastikas, seig heils and other nonsense.... They did not. People can't tell the difference between a sunwheel and a swastika, an odinist rune and an SS badge...... And even still these images were not present.

Gabber/Speedcore (a genre I greatly enjoy) is often attacked with this same kind of naive diatribe simply because the genre seems to have developed a fanbase among Nazi skinheads. It's totally absurd, you can't simply ban something because it has an aesthetic that may appeal to right wing fucktards, you can't help that, certain styles of music that play on aggression and negativity are bound to attract those sorts of people.... So damnit stop trying to wrap cotton wool around everything, they aren't holding a Nazi rally in Slimes so would everyone just do some damn research and see that they have nothing to blather about and shut the hell up....

I've never met a fan of this music that wasn't a nancy boy/girl or that type. Christ people, we're talking about GOTHS here, unless nazism involves gossiping, bitchy dramas, speed usage, smoking, alcohol, getting dressed up or being massively unreliable and self-absorbed then they aren't going to do it haha....

By the way - on the subject of my hating slimelight - this is due to being made to feel like a pariah and targeted with abuse - when I am supposedly a "goth" - by OTHER "goths", for not wearing the right clothes, make-up, etc, not dancing the right way, not being sexually available, or whatever.... hateful stares, bitchy and harsh words said to and about me, even being physically pushed around in am aggressive way..... The slimelight regulars are nazi enough already, why stop there?

I mean these guys aren't playing songs called "I Hate Coons" or some shit - sure there are some fascist pigs out there but a lot of this post-industrial/neo-folk music is gravely misunderstood and has been since the 80s... I doubt 90% of the people going ape shit over this whole drama have ever actually listened to the "nazi bands" they are slagging off and as a result know nothing of how tired and old this issue is.....

I think the tiredness and oldness of this issue is well known. It also seems clear that most posters here are very familiar with the bands you have cited. The only one you list that I am not well versed in is Genocide Organ.

But I love Death in June, and that isn't even really the point, these people should be allowed to play their music damnit!

Not everyone who is concerned with this broader issue wants to cancel shows. Some of us just think it is inherently good to have an open discussion about this.

A lot of these stupid accusations arise out of the populace's inability to distinguish "Nazism" from Occult/Odinist type practices, which I will admit in certain circles do hold interpretably racist views, but not to such an extent by any means that it could be called Nazism.

Perhaps. But there may be much more racism and nazi sympathies in the subculture you have described than you realize. Asatru has always had issues with this, so much that the non-racist Asatru groups have had to issue clear statements distancing themselves from the more racist, fascist elements. Is there other religious group which has to clearly distance itself from the sizable faction of said religion which is known to hold such views? As to how telling this is, that is certainly a matter of discussion, but it is relevant.

People can't tell the difference between a sunwheel and a swastika, an odinist rune and an SS badge...... And even still these images were not present.

There are various symbols that are sometimes called the sunwheel. The celtic cross, a 'rounded' swastika, and the symbol also known as the 'black sun' have all been identified as sun wheels. Still, all those were used by the third reich. All of those remain in use by far right nazi and fascist groups today. Are there other meanings to those symbols? Of course. Do non-nazis use them? Yes. But you have to examine the context of them. It is not enough to say that these are pagan symbols and not identical to the more commonly known nazi symbols. Further, the symbols, like Asatru and norse paganism, have become increasingly associated with far right elements, so much so that they can even serve as 'signals' of sorts, when more explicit images such as swastikas are unacceptable.

Thelma - if you bothered to read the large part [and yes, I know its a hell of a lot of words] - or even just the most recent post about Andrew King on this site, you would realise that it is your COUNTER-allegations that are stupid [your word] and the cotton wool you speak of is the fluff of self-publicity surrounding these bands - this website hopefully aims to strip away THEIR bullshit - your take on 'Odinist type practises' for example - go and express your naive point-of-view to the people who run the american prison system, for example - ask them about it - or look at the website of one of Boyd Rices old friends - Wyatt Kaltenberg - see what he says about it - better still have a look at some of his filth on his own site on google -but read this - and I know that the audience are mostly a bunch of sophistcated goths - if that is possible - but this is what some of them allie themselves to conciously or otherwise - even if not being fascist or national anarchist;from wikipedia -"Kaplan claims that there is a growing interest in one form of Odinism among members of the radical racist right-wing movements.[32] Berger judges that there has been an aggregation of both racist and non-racist groups under the heading of "Odinism", which has confused the discussion about neo-Nazi Neopagans, and which has led most non-racist Germanic neopagans to favour terms like "Ásatrú" or "Heathenry" over "Odinism".[33] Thus, the 1999 Project Megiddo report issued by the FBI used "Odinism" as referring to white supremacist groups exclusively, sparking protests by the International Asatru-Odinic Alliance, Stephen McNallen expressing concern about a "pattern of anti-European-American actions".[34"

@ Thelma: I was very sorry to read of your experiences with bullying at the Slimelight. This is certainly not the inclusive image which patrons and defenders of the forthcoming gig aim to portray on Facebook and elsewhere, but it doesn't surprise me.

For your information, here is brief article which I received today from Hope Not Hate/Searchlight, concerning the Far Right's current attitude to disability issues:

"The British National Party has further proved that it is nothing if not desperate. The party has quietly announced the reappointment of Jeffrey Marshall as its East London organiser, not two years after he was embroiled in a scandal over his call for children with disabilities to be killed.

When David Cameron's son Ivan passed away in February 2009, Marshall went onto an internet forum writing: "We live in a country today which is unhealthily dominated by an excess of sentimentality towards the weak and unproductive. No good will come of it." Cameron's son had cerebral palsy and was described by the Camerons as their "beautiful boy". David Cameron said that Ivan had brought "joy and love to those around him".

Not content with attacking Mr and Mrs Cameron and others mourning Ivan's death, Marshall, who is not known to have any children of his own, stated that although it would be "a kindness" to kill children with disabilities, this was not the same as advocating such a measure as compulsory state policy. "But so what if it is?" he asked. "At least we would all know where we stand. There is actually not a great deal of point in keeping these sort of people alive, after all."

It is not the first time that the BNP has called for those with disabilities to killed. They once suggested that people who lived in poverty were a drain on society, that this showed an inherent "weakness" in them and that measures should be taken to stop them from having children.

As more and more people in this country slide into poverty, it is noticeable that the BNP has nothing to say about spending cuts and the damage they could do to "their" country. Instead, the BNP prefers to sink further into internal acrimony and the continued promotion of its own disease of racism and fascism, a disease which we will resist for the good of all, regardless of where people live or their colour, religion, sexuality and ability."

You should probably know that at least two of the Slimelight defenders on the Facebook page 'None so deaf' are ALSO regualr contributors to the Facebook London BNP page.

As one of the triumphs so far of this campaign (sheesh) has been Peter Sotos's withdrawal from the later Slimelight gig, I'd like to draw a comparison between his brief statement and a longer one from another source.

"The only reason that I wanted to be involved with this show was that I like SJ and Gaya very much. I’d rather not put anyone in the position of having to defend me or ideas that are, to me at least, more complex and lifelong than the current forum seems to allow" - Peter Sotos

"...what is thinkable will of course be constrained by the language itself. You can think or believe what you want, as long as you can speak this particular language. Nobody is especially concerned about what you say, with what extreme, moderate, radical or conservative positions you adopt, provided that they are compatible with, and can be articulated within, a specific form of discourse. It is just that certain meanings and positions will not be articulable within it" - Terry Eagleton

I'm no fan of the music or politics of most people discussed here but it now seems clear that the direct result of the site, whatever its creators' intentions, has been to help create new and more secure modes of hegemonic discourse and to ensure the further exclusion and pathologisation of troublesome voices such as Sotos.